TE2 QASP.pdf

Ship Manager Solicitation DTMA98R20120001 Technical Exhibit – 2 (TE-2)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

Ready Reserve Force (RRF) Ship Manager Services

Maritime Administration

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 2 of 89

Introduction:

One of the required sections of Performance Based Service Contracting is a Performance Assessment Plan (PAP) also called a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). Note: the terminology Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is interchangeable with Performance Assessment Plan (PAP). From FAR 37.602-2 Quality Assurance, Agencies shall develop QASP when acquiring services (see 46.103 and 46.401(a)). These plans shall recognize the responsibility of the contractor (see 46.105) to carry out its quality control obligations and shall contain measurable inspection and acceptance criteria corresponding to the performance standards contained in the statement of work. The QASPs shall focus on the level of performance required by the statement of work, rather than the methodology used by the contractor to achieve that level of performance.

The QASP Performance Element defines the performance measurements and methods that Maritime Administration Reviewing Officials will use to assess the Contractor’s ability to meet the requirements and objectives of the RRF Ship Manager Services contract. The remainder of this document will define the performance elements in terms of goals and objectives, standards, acceptable quality levels and method/frequency of inspection that will be used by the Government to fairly and consistently judge the Contractor’s performance of the RFP Ship Manager Services Statement of Work.

QASP PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS:

Each QASP Performance Element consists of the (A) Performance Worksheet and (B) Evaluation Check-off Sheet:

A. Performance Worksheet: Defines criteria of performance element:

1. PERFORMANCE GOAL: goal is clearly stated at the top of the page.

2. PERFORMANCE ELEMENT: each Performance Goal may have one or more

"performance elements" which will be evaluated on an individual basis to determine performance. Performance Elements are usually limited to a single topic.

3. OBJECTIVE: explanatory text involving or deriving from the Performance Element.

4. STANDARD: measurable factors.

GENERAL STANDARDS

• Rates – such as, cost per lb

• Limits – not more than, not less than

• Criteria – such as Power, Weight, Volume, life cycle, accuracy

• Systematic – such as regulations issued by an organization

• Quantity – Was the service too much? Too little?

• Quality – Was the SM’s quality plan adhered to? Should the SM QA Plan have addressed it?

• Timeliness – Was the service performed early? On time? Late? If early or late was there a cost impact to MARAD?

GOVERNMENT SPECIFIC STANDARDS

• U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (mandated by law)

• MARAD Operational Management Manual

• MARAD Logistics Management Manual

• Engineering Operating Manuals (per ship)

• Deck Operating Manuals (per ship)

• The contract itself

• National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) Severe Weather Plan

• MOORING PLAN for Outported vessels

• MSC SOP (electronic version - provided at activation)

• Navy, MSC, and Area Command SOPs (electronic versions provided as needed)

• Rules and Regulations of the FCC

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 3 of 89

• COMSC Communications Policies and Procedures Manual

• U.S. Public Health Service Regulations - to maximum extent possible

• Carriage of HAZARDOUS or Explosive CARGOES: USCG regulations, Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC 655, et. seq.,); regulations prescribed by the Dept of Labor for longshoremen; and COMSC instruction 9023.1 Subject: Safety Regulations Governing Handling and Transportation of Ammunition and Other Hazardous Cargoes.

NON-CONSENSUS STANDARDS*

• SM Quality Plan

• Manufacturer’s Equipment Operating Manuals (per ship)

• SM developed Commercial Procurement Procedures

• SM developed Predictive Maintenance Plan

• SM developed Activation Plan

• SM developed Operational Plan

• SM developed Deactivation plan

• SM developed specifications and drawings for repairs or upgrades

*"Non-consensus standards," "Industry standards," "Company standards," or "de facto standards," are defined as standards which are developed in the private sector but not in the full consensus process.

VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS

• International Safety Management (ISM) Code

• Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) U.S., as established by the

Finance Accounting Standards Board

• International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)

• ABS Rules for Steel Vessels

• Code of International Ship Management

• Standards of Training, Certification & Watch-keeping (STCW-95) or current agreement

• Current ITU Radio Regulations

• Bridge to Bridge Radio Telephone Act

• International Maritime Satellite (INMARSAT) and MF/HF, UHF, and VHF procedures for communication

• International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

• U.S. Inland Rules of the Road

• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000 (series) - refers to all those features of a product (or service) which are required by the customer. "Quality management" means what the organization does to ensure that its products conform to the customer's requirements.

• ISO 14000 (series) to minimize harmful effects on the environment caused by its activities

• ISO/OHSAS 18000 (series) OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

5. ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVEL (AQL): provides 3 or more levels of performance required to be met, or any acceptable deviation from the standard that may be allowed. The AQL is not a threshold at which official notification actions must be taken.

6. OBJECTIVE QUALITY EVIDENCE - (OQE): Any record, information, or statement of fact, quantitative or qualitative, pertaining to the quality of a product or service, including safety, based on observations, measurements, or tests which can be verified. OQE will be expressed in terms of specific quality requirements or characteristics. These characteristics are identified in drawings, specifications or other documents which describe the item, process, or procedure. The OQE is physical evidence that an auditor or reviewer, when

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 4 of 89 reviewing an audit report or check off sheet, can inspect and evaluate for themselves. It provides compelling evidence that the findings support the quality level given.

7. INITIATING OFFICIAL: Functional title of MARAD official or officials who initiate QASP evaluations. For several elements this may include more than one official.

8. METHOD OF INSPECTION: Acceptable methods of inspection include, but are not limited to:

100% INSPECTION/SURVEILLANCE: (FAR) is the most appropriate method for infrequent tasks or tasks with stringent performance requirements, such as safety or health concerns, or activations for national mobilizations. With this method, performance is inspected/evaluated at each occurrence.

RANDOM SAMPLING: (FAR) is a statistically based method that assumes receipt of acceptable performance if a given percentage or number of scheduled assessments is found to be acceptable. Random sampling is the most suitable method for frequently reoccurring tasks such as maintenance or contract records administration.

It works best when the number of instances is very large and a statistically valid sample can be obtained. There is no set percentage or minimum/maximum number of assessments conducted in Random Sampling. The quantity of assessments will be based on findings and performance.

PERIODIC INSPECTION: is planned at specific intervals or dates that are directly applicable to tasks that occur infrequently such as activations, operations, major ship repair, the annual contract administrative review; or COTR ship visit. These inspections may be conducted by any MARAD personnel acting in accordance with his/her position.

UNSCHEDULED INSPECTIONS: An unplanned inspection usually carried out in conjunction with inspections of other requirements or in an impromptu fashion on the way to or from another commitment. For example, a COTR may be monitoring preventative maintenance operations. Incident to that inspection, he/she may notice and document another service that fails to meet specific performance standards.

This constitutes an unscheduled inspection. It is seldom used as a primary method of surveillance. Decisions on what to inspect are usually arbitrary; they are made simply “because you are there,” but may include obvious safety violations or unsafe practices. Consider Unscheduled Inspections as a supplement to other methods. A Quality Deficiency Report (QDR) may be issued for the non-conformance.

TREND ANALYSIS: Uses a database of information, such as the MARAD Ready

Reserve Force Management System (RMS) which consists of NS5, Readiness Reporting, PMARS, SM-PEAS, and/or electronic invoicing to show trends over a period of time. Trend analysis should be used regularly and continually to access the contractor’s ongoing performance over time. Contractor-managed metrics may provide additional information needed for analysis.

CONTRACTOR METRICS: are Metrics defined and maintained per the Ship

Manager Quality Plan.

THIRD PARTY AUDITS: Defense Contract Audit Agency; authorized ISM organizations, or any 3rd party agency or organization requested by MARAD to perform inspections. A third party is an organization that is independent of the government and the contractor. All documentation supplied to, and produced by the third party should be made available to both the government and the contractor.

NON-CONFORMITY: A Non Conformity occurs when the Ship Manager does not fulfill any specified requirement in the Ship Manager Contract(SMC) - including but

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 5 of 89 not limited to contract clauses, Performance Work Statement, SMC Technical Exhibits, Ship Manager Contract guidance issued by MARAD, Ship Manager’s contract deliverables approved by MARAD, and any other Ship Manager Plans and Procedures approved or accepted by MARAD.

Examples of non-conformities include, but are not limited to:

• Any deviation from standard;

• Lack of Ship Manager’s full compliance with any Ship Manager Contract requirement;

• Conditions jeopardizing the ability to fulfill contractual requirements or jeopardizing the readiness or reliability of the vessel or the delivery of quality ship management service IAW the SMC;

• Vessel Causalities;

• Injury or Death; Property, Environmental or Cargo Damage;

• Hazardous Situations;

• Customer Complaints;

• Failure of equipment due to non performance of vessel procedures approved by Ship Manager;

• Non-compliance with Specific Operating Procedure or instructions issued by

MARAD;

• Non-compliance with Specific Operating Procedure or instructions issued by

Ship Manager; and/or

• Unsafe Operations or incorrect processes.

Note: Any internal observations, internal recommendations and near-misses identified by the Ship Manager during his routine internal quality audits, reviews, Safety management System reviews, process improvement efforts, etc., shall be considered part of his routine internal quality control procedures and shall not be considered a Ship Manager Contract Non-Conformity for the purposes of evaluating the Ship Manager’s performance in this QASP.

9. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS: The COTR will advise the Ship Manager in advance of his/her schedule. Not all QASP Performance Elements will be evaluated on each scheduled inspection period.

10. STATEMENT OF WORK REFERENCE: This is the location within the contract, usually Section C, which refers to the performance requirement. It may be the numerical clause and its follow-on depending clauses, such as Sections C.2, C.2.1, C.2.2, C.2.2.1, etc.

11. OTHER APPLICABLE REFERENCES: References through the contract and other MARAD documents which apply to the performance requirement.

12. RATING:

12.1. Each Performance Element receives an individual rating.

12.2. Each performance element may be rated more than one time per performance rating period. For example, if the Frequency of Inspections is monthly, and the rating period is six months long, then there should be six (6) performance elements included in the final.

12.3. “Exceeds Standard’: Sustained improvements that exceed the Meets Standard level during the inspection period or provide value-added services and products that exceed contractual requirements of this section. BZs should be considered as one of the criteria for any individual item leading to an exceeds standard rating.

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 6 of 89

12.4. Continuous Improvement : For the purpose of clarity in conducting evaluations, the following guidance is provided relative to the purpose and intended results arising out of the Ship manager’s Continual Improvement program:

[Following definition was extracted from ABS Guide For Marine Health, Safety, Quality and Environmental Management:]

Continual Improvement – recurring process of enhancing the management system in order to achieve improvements in overall performance consistent with the Company’s stated policies for safety, quality and pollution prevention, as applicable.

[Following Definition extracted directly from ISO Definitions Translated into plain English “ISO 9001 Definitions” @ www.praxiom.com/iso-definition.htm]

Continual Improvement is a set of activities that an organization routinely carries out in order to enhance its ability to meet requirements. Continual improvement can be achieved by carrying out internal audits, performing management reviews, analyzing data, and implementing corrective and preventative actions

Based on the above, QASP evaluators shall recognize that successful implementation of a Ship Manager’s continual improvement program may not always result in measurable and demonstrable improvements (of a quantitative nature) in each rating period as compared to the previous period. The Government’s evaluation in this area should be a verification that the SM effectively continued to implement an on-going and proactive process to identify and improve their business and operating processes and practices during the current rating period. Further, that the SM takes prudent action to improve in those areas where considered reasonable and appropriate through the process of corrective and preventative actions.

13 RATIONALE/COMMENTS: Individual COTR comments are found in this section of the worksheet. These summary comments support the performance element rating discussed above.

NOTE CONCERNING VALIDATED CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS: Customer Feedback/User Complaints: (FAR). Customer feedback/user complaint is a means of documenting certain kinds of service problems and successes. Any MARAD personnel acting in accordance with his/her position; members of USCG, MSC, USTRANSCOM, or other DOD components may issue a customer feedback/user complaint. The feedback/complaint is issued to the COTR.

Feedback comments should have a time/date; narrative description; name of individual. To be a valid method, all such alleged defects must be examined by the COTR within a reasonable time (depends on nature of service) and determined to be a true defect. The COTR will add the date that feedback is verified or accepted.

B. EVALUATION CHECK OFF SHEET: A check off list used solely as a memory jogger and job aid to help the COTR in the field during his/her evaluation of the Ship Manager’s performance. The Check-Off Sheet is not part of the Performance Element. The QASP evaluation is not solely dependent on the check off sheet. The Check-off sheet is only a summary of the evaluator’s field notes and is considered privileged Government’s official backup material.

This Government evaluator’s back-up check off sheet is appended after each Performance Element in this QASP, entered into the Performance Evaluation and Appraisal System (PEAS), and provided to the Ship Manager solely as courtesy information. .

The Check-off sheet questions have been developed and numbered to match each of the corresponding standards listed under the “Meets Standards” section of the applicable

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 7 of 89

Performance Element in this QASP. Sub–questions have been developed under each Check-off list question to list items which are recommended for COTR consideration during his/her evaluation of the Ship Manager’s performance for the applicable Performance Element Standard. COTRs should answer all lettered sub-questions listed below each numbered question before answering the applicable numbered question.

All check-off list questions and sub-questions have been designed to enhance clarity, eliminate any double negatives, and always result in a “Yes” answer to indicate positive Ship Manager performance. Notes have been added to sub-questions as necessary to enable the COTR to readily identify and record any instances where Ship Manager’s performance meets the “Exceeds Standards” AQLs.

A new column “N/A or N/O” has been added after “Yes” and the “No” columns in the check-off sheets. The COTR should mark this column if any question or sub-question is “Not Applicable” or was “Not Observed” during the rating period. [ Note: This N/A column will only be available in SM-PEAS when the next enhanced SM-PEAS version is released]

It is recommended that COTRs complete the entire check-off sheet and answer all questions and sub-questions before completing his/her rating of the SM performance.

COTR's are expected to use and complete check-off sheets and to save them as documentation supporting their ratings. However, this is not a contract requirement.

Conclusions

Upon the conclusion of a six month evaluation rating period (after first rating period which is 9 months after NTP), a formal copy of the evaluation will be sent by the ACO to the Ship Manager.

In accordance with FAR 42.1503(b), the Ship Manager has the right to submit comments to the ACO within 30 days of receipt of the semi-annual past performance evaluation. Comments submitted will be reviewed one level above the ACO and remain part of the record to be presented to the Incentive Awards Committee. See Award Term Incentive Option Plan (ATIOP), Attachment J-12 to the RRF Ship Manager Contract. Ship Manager’s comments will not change an evaluation, but may in the view of the Incentive Awards Committee mitigate it. The ultimate conclusion on the performance evaluation is a decision of the contracting agency. Copies of the evaluation, contractor response, and review comments, if any, shall be retained as part of the evaluation.

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 8 of 89

Performance Goal 1: Responsive and High-Quality Completion of Fleet Maintenance Requirements

Performance Element 1-1: Preventative Maintenance Plan (PMP) Execution and Update

Performance Objective:

Ship Manager is effectively and efficiently executing the PMP in both Phase M and Phase O to successfully achieve readiness, activation and operational requirements.

Standards (must meet one of the following in addition to achieving “Meets Standard”)

Quality Levels

Exceeds Standard Exceeds Acceptable Quality Levels

1. All maintenance actions for non-critical equipment are accomplished

1. No more than two omissions per vessel per month

2. PM actions are updated to improve the effectiveness of the PMP

2. Objective Quality Evidence (OQE) – The SM clearly demonstrates a program of continuous improvement and/or they have previously achieved Exceeds Standards and continued to maintain that level during current inspection period.

3. NS5 is updated to reflect any anomalies or additional maintenance conducted in the process of executing PM actions

3. No more than two omissions on non-critical equipments per vessel per six month Performance Appraisal Period.

Meets Standard (must meet all of the following)

Acceptable Quality Level

1. All maintenance actions are completed on “critical equipments”

1. No omissions

2. All maintenance actions for non-critical equipment are accomplished

2. No more than five omissions per vessel per month

AND

The same incomplete action was properly completed in the previous maintenance cycle.

3. The PMP is updated to reflect equipment additions, change-outs and removals

3. Zero omissions

4. NS5 is updated to reflect any completed PM and anomalies or additional maintenance conducted in the process of executing PM actions

4. Zero omissions on Critical Equipment;

AND

No more than six omissions on non-critical equipments per vessel per six month Performance Appraisal Period

Unsatisfactory (meets any of the following or does not meet any “Meet Standard”

AQL)

Unsatisfactory Quality Level

1. All maintenance actions are completed on “critical equipments”

1. One action is not completed

2. All maintenance actions for non-critical equipment are accomplished

2. Six omissions per vessel per month

OR

Any of the current incomplete actions was not completed in the previous maintenance cycle.

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 9 of 89

3. The PMP is updated to reflect equipment additions, change-outs and removals

3. One omission

4. NS5 is updated to reflect any anomalies or additional maintenance conducted in the process of executing PM actions

4. One omission on Critical Equipment;

OR

Seven omissions on non-critical equipments per vessel per six month Performance Appraisal Period

Critical Equipment to be defined as "Equipment included in the PM Plan that is essential to successful activation and/or successful sustained operation for 180 days."

Non-critical Equipment to be defined as "Equipment included in the PM Plan not deemed critical as defined above."

Initiating Official:

COTR

Method of Inspection:

COTR review of NS5 and/or on-board maintenance records Visual inspection of equipment and systems during ship visits by COTR Light-offs, Dock and Sea Trials ABS Surveys USCG Inspections Frequency of Inspection:

Continuous review of maintenance history database, minimum monthly.

Periodic COTR vessel visits. (note: COTR shall inspect each vessel at least monthly for vessels in Phase M and annually for vessels in Phase O) Statement of Work Reference:

C.2.3.1.1

Applicable References:

NS5, other applicable vessel maintenance records, Ship Technical Manuals; Ship Operating Manuals; Applicable Regulatory Rules, Regulations and MOUs, SM Business Plan, Ship Manager’s Quality Assurance Procedures

Rating:

0 2 3 Unsat Meets Exceeds Standard Standard

Rationale/Comments required for all rating levels:

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 10 of 89

Performance Element 1-1 PMP Execution Frequency: Monthly Inspection of Ship’s Equipment and Material Condition

- Check List (Job Aid only for COTR)

Yes No N/A or

N/O

Remarks

1) All maintenance actions are completed on “critical equipments”?

a) Did the Ship Manager implement his Phase M maintenance plan? (Check Monthly only in Phase M)

b) Did the Ship Manager implement his Phase O maintenance plan if operational for greater than 30 days? (Check Monthly only in Phase O)

c) Were all PM actions on critical equipment completed by SM in accordance with the applicable Phase M or Phase O maintenance plan?

2) All maintenance actions for non-critical equipment are accomplished?

a) Were all items that were not completed as required during the current inspection period properly completed by SM in the previous maintenance cycle?

b) Are five or less maintenance actions on non-critical equipment per vessel per month incomplete?

(Meets Standard)

If two or less maintenance actions on non-critical equipment per vessel per month are incomplete, note under remarks here and explain under Evaluator’s Summary Assessment on the PIR.

(Exceeds Standard)

c) Did the COTR’s witnessing the execution of at least 2 PM actions disclose that all applicable written procedures were followed?

d) Did the COTR’s random inspection of a minimum 5% sampling of PMP actions, which were recorded as completed by SM during COTR’s absence, disclose indications that the inspected PM actions were accomplished in accordance with the written procedures?

Review of PMP

3) The PMP is updated to reflect equipment additions, change-outs and removals?

a) Did SM update the PMP to reflect equipment change outs, additions, and/or removals?

(Check only as necessary upon ship configuration changes)

b) Did the SM improve the effectiveness of the PMP as necessary to improve the quality of a specific maintenance action (enhanced procedure, adjusted frequency, etc.)?

If the SM clearly demonstrates a program of continuous improvement and/or they have previously achieved Exceeds Standards and continued to maintain that level during current inspection period, note under remarks here and explain under Evaluator’s Summary Assessment on the PIR.

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 11 of 89

Review of NS5 Database - Compare data entries against scheduled and completed actions

4) NS5 is updated to reflect any completed PM and anomalies or additional maintenance conducted in the process of executing PM actions?

a) Did SM update NS5 to reflect completion of the scheduled maintenance actions?

b) Has the SM identified and documented any additional unscheduled work accomplished during the execution of PM actions into NS5?

c) If any PM action discloses need for future maintenance & repairs, did SM enter required repairs as a Service Request in NS5 including resources and cost estimate?

d) Did SM make entries in accordance with NS5 PM Guidance?

e) Did SM’s update of NS5 have zero omissions regarding Critical Equipment PM actions?

f) Did SM’s update of NS5 have total of six or less omissions per vessel in current six month Performance Appraisal Period regarding Non-Critical Equipment PM actions?

(Meets Standards)

Note: COTR to put running total for current six-month PAP under Remarks.

If SM’s update of NS5 had a total of two or less omissions per vessel in current six month Performance Appraisal Period regarding Non-Critical Equipment PM actions, note under remarks here and explain under Evaluator’s Summary Assessment on the PIR.

COTR Feedback to SM Did the COTR advise the Ship Manager QA POC, Port Engineer, and/or ROS Chief Engineer of any non-conformities, inconsistencies or unsatisfactory conditions upon identification?

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 12 of 89

Performance Element 1-2: Regulatory Body Classification/Certification

Performance Objective:

Regulatory body surveys and inspections are compliant and current. Outstanding non-conformities levied by regulatory bodies are being resolved in a timely manner.

Standards Quality Levels Exceeds Standards (must meet 5 of the following in addition to achieving “Meets Standard”)

Exceeds Acceptable Quality Levels

1. All onboard documents are current and maintained in the appropriate locations

1. No unaccounted non-conformities

2. Complete all ABS and USCG Annual Regulatory inspections within the annual survey window.

2. No ABS survey or USCG inspection remains unscheduled past the first 30 days of ABS Survey 90 day window

And ABS Surveys and USCG inspections are completed on or before the due date.

3. No ABS outstanding issued per inspection cycle

3. No ABS outstanding recommendations except for MARAD

(610) Allowed items which can only be cleared during activation.

4. No USCG 835s issued during an inspection period

4. No USCG 835s except for any MARAD (610) Allowed 835s (e.g., fire and boat drill) items which can only be cleared during activation

5. Vessel is fully prepared and pre-checks conducted prior to regulatory body inspection or survey

5. No noted discrepancies or required revisits (re-perform scheduled test) by ABS and USCG

6. Ship Managers monitor changes to regulatory body requirements and implement changes to achieve compliance.

6. Objective Quality Evidence (OQE) – Proactive notification to MARAD, crew training, and identify necessary changes to business plan

Meets Standards (must meet all of the following)

Acceptable Quality Level

1. All onboard documents are current and maintained in the appropriate locations

1. No more than one non-conformity noted

2. Complete all ABS and USCG Annual

2. No non-conformities

3. No more than five ABS outstandings that do not impact readiness, except for MARAD (610) Allowed items which can only be cleared during activation

4. All ABS outstanding items are cleared before due date

4. No non-conformities

5. No USCG 835s issued during an inspection period.

(THIS ITEM EXCLUDES SECURITY

RELATED NON-CONFORMITIES)

5. No more than five USCG 835s that do not impact readiness except for any MARAD (610) Allowed 835s (e.g., fire and boat drill) items which can only be cleared during activation

6. All 835s and work lists are cleared by due date

6. No non-conformities

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 13 of 89

7. Vessel is fully prepared and pre-checks conducted prior to regulatory body inspection or survey

7. No more than two discrepancies identified by regulators that were cleared in a single revisit

8. The NS5 database is updated to reflect current regulatory body requirements

8. No non-conformities

9. Ship Managers monitor changes to regulatory body requirements and implement changes to achieve compliance

9. Vessels remain in compliance

Unsatisfactory (meets any of the following or does not meet any “Meet Standard” AQL)

Unsatisfactory Quality Level

1. All onboard documents are current and maintained in the appropriate locations

1. More than one non-conformity noted

2. Complete all ABS and USCG Annual

2. Non-conformities observed.

3. More than five ABS outstandings that do not impact readiness, except for MARAD (610) Allowed items which can only be cleared during activation

4. All ABS outstanding items are cleared before due date

4. Non-conformities noted

5. No USCG 835s issued during an inspection period

5. More than five USCG 835s that do not impact readiness except for any MARAD (610) Allowed 835s (e.g., fire and boat drill) items which can only be cleared during activation

6. All USCG 835s and work lists are cleared by due date

6. Non-conformities noted

7. Vessel is fully prepared and pre-checks conducted prior to regulatory body inspection or survey

7. More than two noted non-conformities that were cleared in a single revisit

OR

Clearing of non-conformities required more than one revisit

8. The NS5 database is updated to reflect current regulatory body requirements

8. Non-conformities noted

9. Ship Manager monitors changes to regulatory body requirements and implements changes to achieve compliance.

9. Vessel is cited for noncompliance

Note: It is recognized that some USCG 835s or ABS Outstanding non-conformities will be issued due to the vessel’s limited availability.

These non-conformities will not impact the SM’s performance assessment unless the SM is unable to clear the non-conformity when the opportunity is available

Initiating Official:

• COTR

Method of Inspection:

• NS5 Review

• ABS Safenet Review

• Vessel inspection and attendance during surveys

Frequency of Inspection:

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 14 of 89

• COTR discretion but at least monthly.

• COTR attendance during regulatory body inspections.

Statement of Work Reference:

• C.2.1

Other Applicable References:

• Vessel’s “Blue Book” with associated vessel regulatory documents

• ABS SAFENET

• NS5

• USCG Bridge Record Card

• Ship Manager’s Quality Assurance Plan

Rating:

0 2 3 Unsat Meets Exceeds

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 15 of 89

Performance Element 1-2: Regulatory Body Classification/Certification

– Check List (Job Aid only for COTR)

Frequency: Monthly

Regulatory Inspection and Survey Documentation Yes No N/A or

N/O

Remarks

1) All onboard documents are current and maintained in the appropriate locations?

a) Is the Ship Manager in receipt of documents and certificates that have been accomplished? (spot check Blue Book) Note any identified non-conformities or superior performance under Remarks. Also note if SM has followed up with applicable regulatory body.

b) Does SM have a valid acceptable reason for any missing regulatory document?

c) Did the Ship Manager review ABS Safenet to confirm proper credit of surveys? (Spot check Safenet).

Note any identified non-conformities or superior performance under Remarks. Also note if SM has followed up with ABS.

d) Is the number of regulatory documentation non-conformities one or less?

(Meets Standard) If zero, note so under Remarks here and explain under Evaluator’s Summary Assessment in PIR.

(Exceeds Standard).

Regulatory Inspection and Survey Execution

2) Complete all ABS and USCG Annual Regulatory inspections within the annual survey window?

a) Did the SM complete all ABS and USCG survey and inspection items within the annual inspection window?

(Meets Standard)

If No ABS or USCG survey or inspection remains unscheduled past the first 30 days of ABS Survey 90 day window, and ABS Surveys and USCG inspections are completed on or before the due date, summarize specifics under Remarks and explain under

b) Did the Ship Manager carry out all regulatory inspections and surveys as identified in the Ship’s Business Plan? (explain circumstances for a no response)

c) Did the SM conduct all regulatory inspections and surveys in an efficient manner?

d) Did SM request zero extensions during the inspection period?

e) If SM requested any extensions, were they reasonable and pre-approved by MARAD?

3) No ABS outstandings issued during the inspection period (except for MARAD allowed items that can only be cleared during activation)?

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 16 of 89

If ABS identified any non-conformities during the inspection period (except for MARAD 610 allowed items that can only be cleared during activation), summarize specifics under Remarks and explain under Evaluator’s Summary Assessment.

a) Did COTR confirm that none of the ABS identified non-conformities (except for MARAD 610 allowed items required during activation) resulted in an impact on readiness? (if no, explain in Remarks)

b) Were five or less ABS outstandings (that do not impact readiness), except for MARAD 610 Allowed Items which can only be cleared during activation, issued during inspection period? (Meets Standard)

If zero ABS outstanding recommendations were issued (except for MARAD 610 Allowed Items required during activation), note so under Remarks here and explain under Evaluator’s Summary Assessment in PIR.

4) All ABS outstanding items are cleared before due date?

a) Has SM scheduled corrective action for all ABS non-conformities in a reasonable and acceptable timeframe?

5) No USCG 835s issued during the inspection period (except for MARAD 610 Allowed Items required during activation)?

(THIS ITEM EXCLUDES SECURITY RELATED NON-

CONFORMITIES)

a) Were zero “No Sail” non-conformities (except for MARAD 610 Allowed Items which can only be cleared during activation) issued since last performance report?

If any No Sail non-conformities were issued, answer No and summarize under Remarks and explain under

b) Did SM promptly notify COTR regarding any identified “No Sail” non-conformities?

c) Were five or less USCG 835s (that do not impact readiness) issued during inspection period - excluding any MARAD 610 Allowed Items (e.g., fire and boat drill) which can only be cleared during activation?

(Meets Standard)

If zero USCG 835s were issued (except for MARAD 610 Allowed Items which can only be cleared during activation), note so under Remarks here and explain under Evaluator’s Summary Assessment in PIR.

(Exceeds Standard).

6) All 835s and work lists are cleared by due date (except for MARAD 610 Allowed Items which can only be cleared during activation)?

(THIS ITEM EXCLUDES SECURITY RELATED NON-

CONFORMITIES)

a) Can all “No Sail” non-conformities be corrected by SM during the assigned readiness period?

b) Has SM scheduled corrective action for all USCG identified non-conformities (except for MARAD 610 Allowed Items that can only be cleared during

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 17 of 89 activation) in a reasonable and acceptable timeframe?

7) Vessel is fully prepared and pre-checks conducted prior to regulatory body inspection or survey?

a) Was each vessel fully prepared for the accomplishment of the survey and/or inspection i.e., did SM pretest equipment and has adequate resources available to support the survey/inspection?

b) Were additional resources identified and scheduled by SM for the proper conduct of the survey and/or inspection valid and reasonable?

c) Did each scheduled inspection or survey visit result in no more than two non-conformities that were cleared in a single revisit?

(Meets Standard) If USCG/ABS noted zero non-conformities on all visits and required zero revisits (to re-perform previously conducted inspection /survey), note so under Remarks here and explain under Evaluator’s Summary Assessment in PIR.

Review of NS5 Database

8) The NS5 database is updated to reflect current regulatory body requirements?

a) Did SM update all the key Regulatory Body inspections, surveys, and due dates in the NS5 database upon completion?

b) Did SM accurately document and maintain all PM/CM actions completed within inspection period within NS5 for presentation to Regulatory Body surveyors?

Monitoring & Implementing Regulatory Changes

9) Ship Manager monitors changes to regulatory body requirements and implements changes to achieve compliance?

If there were no regulatory changes since the last Performance Inspection Report, mark #9, #9a, #9b & #9c as N/A.

a) Did SM ensure that vessels remain in compliance with the new regulatory changes? (Meets Standard)

b) Did the ship manager proactively notify MARAD of any new regulations issued during the inspection period and make recommendations for changes in the BP to satisfy compliance? (Exceeds Standard)

c) Did the Ship Manager proactively train vessel crews in the new requirements? (Exceeds Standard)

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 18 of 89

Performance Element 1-3: Vessel Readiness & Reliability

The vessel is capable of being activated within its assigned readiness period and can reliably sustain 180-days Fully Mission Capable (FMC) operations.

Standards Quality Levels Exceeds Standards (must meet one of the following in addition to achieving “Meets Standard”)

Exceeds Acceptable Quality Levels

1. During Phase M, Ship Manager maintains vessel in C1/C2 readiness status unless a C3 or C5 period is scheduled in the approved Business Plan and/or pre-approved by MARAD

1. Zero unscheduled C3 or C4 periods per vessel during inspection period

2. If operational, Ship Manager operates vessel in Phase O in a reliable FMC condition for up to 180 days

2. Minimum 98% FMC sustained per vessel for each month of operation

And Minimum 98% FMC for the overall operation period greater than 30 days (up to 6 months vessel operating period).

(Note: All planned, scheduled and pre-approved C5 repair periods are considered FMC)

Meets Standards (must meet all of the following)

Acceptable Quality Level

1. During Phase M, Ship Manager maintains vessel in C1/C2 readiness status unless a C3 or C5 period is scheduled in the approved Business Plan and/or pre-approved by MARAD

1. Nine days of unscheduled C3 or C4 periods per vessel during each 180 day Phase M Period.

Note: The number of allowable unscheduled Out-of-Readiness days will be prorated to = 9 x Actual Days in Phase M / 180.

2. If operational, Ship Manager operates vessel in Phase O in an FMC condition for up to 180 days

2. Minimum 95% FMC sustained per vessel for each month of operation

And Minimum 95% FMC for the overall operation period greater than 30 days (up to 6 months vessel operating period).

( Note: All planned, scheduled and pre-approved C5 repair periods are considered FMC)

3. The Ship Manager accurately reports vessel readiness

3. Zero instances of the SM failing to accurately report vessel readiness condition

4. The Ship Manager promptly reports unscheduled readiness changes within 24 hours of identification

4. Zero non-conformities.

Unsatisfactory (meets any of the following or does not meet any “Meets Standard” AQL)

Unsatisfactory Quality Level

1. Ship Manager maintains vessel in C1/C2 readiness status unless a C3 or C5 period is scheduled in the approved

1. More than Nine days of unscheduled C3 or C4 periods per vessel during each 180 day Phase M Period.

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 19 of 89

Business Plan Note: The number of allowable unscheduled Out-of-Readiness days will be prorated to = 9 x Actual Days in Phase M / 180.

2. If operational, Ship Manager operates vessel in Phase O in an FMC condition for up to 180 days

2. Less than 95% FMC sustained per vessel for each month of operation

OR

Less than 95% FMC for the overall operation period greater than 30 days (up to 6 months vessel operating period).

( Note: All planned, scheduled and pre-approved C5 repair periods are considered FMC)

3. The Ship Manager accurately reports vessel readiness

3. One instance of the SM failing to accurately report vessel readiness condition.

4. The Ship Manager promptly reports unscheduled readiness changes within 24 hours of identification

4. One non-conformity

Initiating Official:

COTR

Method of Inspection:

Review of Ship Manager’s After-Action and Incident Reports Review of Casualty Reports Visual inspection of ship by MARAD Operational Message Traffic and SITREPs Frequency of Inspection:

Monthly or more frequent if inconsistencies or non-conformities are found.

Statement of Work Reference:

C.2.2.4, 2.2.5.1, C3.3.1 Other Applicable References:

• Weekly NS5 reports and weekly Status Reports on readiness and RSTARS

• ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels

• Ship Manager Quality Plan

• SM Operations Plan Rating:

0 2 3 Unsat Meets Exceeds

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 20 of 89

Performance Element 1-3: Vessel Readiness & Reliability

- Check List (Job Aid only for COTR)

Frequency: Monthly

Phase M Readiness Yes No N/A or N/O

Remarks

1) Ship Manager maintains vessel in C1/C2 unless a C3 or C5 period is scheduled in the approved Business Plan and/or pre-approved by MARAD?

a) Did SM satisfactorily project all out-of-readiness periods (during this inspection period) in the Annual Business Plan and/or periodic updates?

b) Did SM notify and obtain pre-approval from COTR before commencing all scheduled out-of-readiness periods during this inspection period?

c) Did each vessel have nine days or less of unscheduled C3 or C4 periods during the current six-month Performance Appraisal Period.?

(Meets Standard)

Note: The number of allowable unscheduled Out-of- Readiness days will be prorated to = 9 x Actual Days in Phase M / 180.

Enter actual days in Phase M and calculated allowable Out-of-Readiness days under Remarks.

d) Did each vessel have zero unscheduled C3 or C4 periods per vessel during this inspection period?

Summarize under Remarks and Explain under

Phase O Reliability

2) If operational, Ship Manager operates vessel in Phase

O in an FMC condition for up to 180 days?

If there was no Phase O period during this inspection period, mark #2, #2a, #2b, #2c, #2d, #2d, #2e and #2f as N/A

a) Did each operating vessel sustain operational reliability of 95% FMC or higher for each month of operation?

b) Did each operating vessel sustain operational reliability of 95% FMC or higher for the overall operation period greater than 30 days (up to 6 months vessel operating period)?

Note: All planned, scheduled and pre-approved C5 repair periods are considered FMC.

(Meets Standard)

Calculate and Enter in remarks: Operational Reliability = x days FMC / y days operational* 100 %

If each operating vessel sustained operational reliability

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 21 of 89 of 98% or higher for the entire applicable operational period during the current six-month Performance Appraisal Period, note so under Remarks here and explain under Evaluator’s Summary Assessment in PIR. (Exceeds Standard)

c) Did the ship manager notify the COTR within 24 hours of any unscheduled non-FMC events or any C-3 or C-4 CASREPs?

d) Were all non-FMC periods beyond the control of the Ship Manager, including crew? Explain under Remarks.

e) Was the ship manager proactive in minimizing non- FMC periods?

f) Non-FMC periods did NOT result in a late arrival and/or mission impact?

Readiness Reporting Accuracy

3) The Ship Manager accurately reports vessel readiness?

a) Did the ship manager accurately report readiness (including considering the collective total of all non-conformities that could impact activation or 180-day FMC operations) during this inspection period?

b) Were there Zero instances of the SM failing to accurately report vessel readiness condition?

Readiness Reporting Timeliness

4) The Ship Manager promptly reports unscheduled readiness changes within 24 hours of identification?

a) Did the ship manager notify the COTR within 24 hours of all unscheduled readiness status changes?

(if No, summarize under Remarks here and explain under Evaluator’s Summary Assessment in PIR)

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 22 of 89

Performance Element 1-4: Quality and Completeness of Vessel Business Plan (M&R Work Plan).

Performance Objective:

The Business Plan encompasses the accurate and responsive actions including but not limited to performing preventative maintenance, maintaining regulatory compliance, correction of known and emergent deficiencies, as required to maintain the vessel in C1 or C2 status.

Standards Quality Levels Exceeds Standards (must meet three of the following in addition to achieving “Meets Standard”)

Exceeds Acceptable Quality Levels

1. The Ship Manager demonstrates application of adequate Risk Management of M&R performance/cost/schedule/readiness etc. in the development of their Business Plan

1. Zero major activities and 3% of minor activities demonstrate inadequate risk management by SM.

2. Initial Business Plan’s comprehensiveness, accuracy and quality are adequate.

2. No more than one minor error or omission

3. The final Business Plan’s comprehensiveness, accuracy and quality are adequate.

3. No changes required

4. The initial and final business plans are submitted timely in accordance with the MARAD directed schedule

4. Received at least 3 business days before scheduled due dates

5. The initial and final business plans as submitted comply with the MARAD BP preparation guidance

5. Zero major non-conformity and 2 or less minor non-conformities in Initial Business Plan

AND

Zero major non-conformity and zero minor non-conformity in Final Business Plan

6. SM demonstrates innovation in identifying new and modern components, systems, and processes which can enhance vessel capabilities.

6. OQE.

Meets Standards (must meet all of the following)

Acceptable Quality Level

1. The Ship Manager demonstrates application of adequate Risk Management of M&R performance/cost/schedule/readiness etc. in the development of their Business Plan

1. Zero major activities and 10% or less of minor activities demonstrate inadequate risk management by SM.

2. Initial Business Plan’s comprehensiveness, accuracy and quality are adequate.

2. No more than one major error or omission

3. The final Business Plan’s comprehensiveness, accuracy and quality are adequate.

3. No more than one minor error or omission

4. The initial and final business plans are submitted timely in accordance with the MARAD directed schedule

4. No more than 3 business days after scheduled due date

5. The initial and final business plans as submitted comply with the MARAD BP

5. No more than one major non-conformity and five minor non-

Revised QASP Effective 28 April, 2009 Page 23 of 89 preparation guidance conformities in Initial Business Plan

AND

Zero major non-conformities and two or less minor non-conformities in Final Business Plan

(meets any of the following or does not meet any of the “Meets Standards” AQLs.)

Unsatisfactory Quality Level

1. The Ship Manager demonstrates application of adequate Risk Management of M&R performance/cost/schedule/readines s etc. in the development of their Business Plan

1. One or more major activities and greater than 10% or more of minor activities demonstrate inadequate risk management by SM.

2. Initial Business Plan comprehensiveness, accuracy and quality are adequate.

2. Two or more major error or omission

3. The final Business Plan’s comprehensiveness, accuracy and quality are adequate.

3. Two or more minor error or omission

OR

One major error or omission.

4. The initial and final business plans are submitted timely in accordance with the MARAD directed schedule

4. Business Plan submissions are received 4 or more days after due date

5. The initial and final business plans as submitted comply with the MARAD BP preparation guidance

5. Two major non-conformities or six minor non-conformities in Initial Business Plan

OR

One major non-conformity or two minor non-conformities in Final Business Plan

NOTES:

a. If the Business Plan requires modifications due to MARAD imposed requirements after the initial submission, SMs performance should be reflected in PE 1-5, Responsiveness to changes in the BP.

b. A major activity is defined as a project or individual work item that has a dollar value of $500,000 or more, or applies to a piece of critical equipment, or is an activity which impacts vessel readiness.

c. A minor activity is defined as a project or individual work item that has a dollar value of less than $500,000, applies to non- critical equipment, or is an activity which does not impact vessel readiness.

d. A minor error or omission is defined as the SM having to modify the BP because he omitted 5 or less known repair items or 10 or less known repair items were incomplete in respect to statement of work, applicable equipment, or reasonableness of cost estimate.

e. A major error or omission is defined as a significant change to the overall business plan schedule or cost due to the omission of a key element(s) such as a key regulatory requirement or known activation. The SM will be held accountable for a complete business plan if he is informed of all known activations.

A major re-write may also be defined as the SM omitting more than five (5) known repair items or more than 10 known repair items were incomplete in respect to statement of work, applicable equipment, or reasonableness of cost estimate.

Initiating Officials:

Revised QASP Effective…