EXHIBIT C_QASP Attachment D.xls

XLS spreadsheet 223 KB Posted Sep 8, 2022

Attached to: Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Support MATOC- Draft Solicitation
Solicitation number: W912DY23R0001
Issued by: Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Support Center Huntsville

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 30, 2023

This document contains several quality assurance forms related to a federal contract for digital geophysical mapping and analog geophysics services at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. The forms provide checklists for deliverables, performance requirements, data submittals, geospatial data, chemistry data, safety protocols, and anomaly resolution. Key details include quality assurance for timely and complete submittals, conformance with technical specifications, documentation of performance test results and non-conformances, and safety compliance for explosive handling and disposal, among other requirements. Adherence to the checklists will be evaluated for recommending payment on the contract.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
EXHIBIT A_ CDRL_2of2_2Jul22 (1).pdf	PDF	Sep 8, 2022
ATTACHMENT 6 - Letter of Commitment of Key Subcontractor.docx	DOCX document	Sep 8, 2022
ATTACHMENT 3_DRAFT PWS Sample TO_8 September 2022_AFFF MATOC.docx	DOCX document	Sep 8, 2022
EXHIBIT A_ CDRL_1of__2Jul22 (1).pdf	PDF	Sep 8, 2022
EXHIBIT A_HNC Data Item Descriptions.pdf	PDF	Sep 8, 2022
AFFF_W912DY23R0001_DRAFT RFP_8 SEPTEMBER 2022.pdf	PDF	Sep 8, 2022
EXHIBIT C_QASP Attachment A.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Sep 8, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx	DOCX document	Sep 8, 2022
EXHIBIT D_Small Business Participation Plan Template.docx	DOCX document	Sep 8, 2022
ATTACHMENT 3_SAMPLE TO_Attachment 2 to Draft PWS TO_DRAFT Price Spreadsheet Sample TO_AFFF MATOC_8 September 2022.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Sep 8, 2022
EXHIBIT C_QASP_AFFF MATOC.docx	DOCX document	Sep 8, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4 - Key Personnel Resume Format.docx	DOCX document	Sep 8, 2022
EXHIBIT B_Performance Requirements Summary.pdf	PDF	Sep 8, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2 - Project Experience Form.docx	DOCX document	Sep 8, 2022
ATTACHMENT 3_SAMPLE TO_Attachment 1 to Draft PWS Sample TO_DRAFT Verified Army G9 AFFF Inventory NWD_8 September 2022.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Sep 8, 2022
ATTACHMENT 5 - Key Personnel Commitment Letter.docx	DOCX document	Sep 8, 2022

Show all 16

On GovTribe

Work with this file

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

Try for free Login

Text version

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

Att-D-1 DGM (Data Submittal)

DIGITAL GEOPHYSICAL MAPPING QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM (DATA SUBMITTAL)
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville				Recommend Payment:	Yes		No
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326				QA Reviewer:
Lot ID:				Date:
				See		Field
		Pass	Fail	Comments		Observation		N/A
1) Submittal Ontime
2) Submittal Complete
	(raw/processed data files (mapping & QC), maps,
	field data sheets, updated Access DB (includes
	QC results, target selection tables, etc.)
3) Performance Requirements Results
	(all results documented & failures have RCAs:
	Static Repeatability, Along line measurement spacing,
	Speed, Coverage, Dynamic Detection & Positioning Repeatability,
	Geodetic Equipment Functionality/internal consistency/accuracy)
4) Periodic Recalculation of Performance Requirements (include details in comments section)
	(a) Static Repeatability
	(b) Along Line Measurement Spacing
	(c) Speed
	(d) Coverage
	(e) Dynamic Detection Repeatability
	(f) Dynamic Positioning Repeatability
	(g) Geodetic Functionality
	(h) Geodetic Internal Consistency
5) Review of Maps/Gridded data (Assess Potential Field)
	(visual check: background levelling, striping, latency, noise,
	in particular view seed items for dynamic detection repeatability)
6) Target Selection
	(following selection criteria for anomaly & dig lists, each single
	anomaly has one unique ID, cultural features noted/not selected to dig,
	no gridding artifacts, reporting of anomaly characteristics accurate)
7) Root Cause Analyses/Non-conformances Reported & Accepted
8) Any additional field observations/QA (add notes below)
Quality Assurance Comments:

Att-D-2 DGM QA FORM AnomRes

DIGITAL GEOPHYSICAL MAPPING QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM (Anomaly Resolution)
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville				Recommend Payment:	Yes		No
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326				QA Reviewer:
Lot ID:				Date:
				See		Field
		Pass	Fail	Comments		Observation		N/A
1) Submittal Ontime/Complete (updated Access Tables)
2) Reacquisition Results
	(offset within allowable distance, reacquisition amplitude
	>= 80% original, No contacts with original values >x, etc.)
3) Acceptance Sampling (no unresolved anomalies in sample)
	(post-dig amplitude < criteria or fully documented rationale)
4) Root Cause Analyses/Non-conformances Reported & Accepted
5) Any additional field observations/QA (add notes below)
Quality Assurance Comments:

Att-D-3 GeoSpatial QA Form

DIGITAL GEOSPATIAL DATA/ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville				Recommend Payment:	Yes		No
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326				QA Reviewer:
Submittal Phase: (Circle One)				Date:
Recon SI RI/FS NTCRA NCRA OTHER ESS ESP
				See		Field
		Pass	Fail	Comments		Observation		N/A
1) Submittal Ontime/Complete Submittal
2) All required data submittals (feature classes and tables) provided
	(SDSFIE Data Checker used for features, attributes, and
	domains)
3) All data submitted geospatially correct and projected within correct
	coordinate system as per Project Requirements
4) Root Cause Analyses/Non-conformances Reported & Accepted
	(Insurance that all data sets, digital pictures, and supporting
	document files are supplied to completely support all finding
	and conclusions of the Final Report.)
5) Any additional field observations/QA (add notes below)
6) Final GIS Project deliverable is Complete
Quality Assurance Comments:

Att-D-4 Geospatial Data Chk QA

GEOSPATIAL QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM (DATA SUBMITTAL)

U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville

Recommend Payment:

Yes

IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326

QA Reviewer:

Submittal Phase: (Circle One)

Date:

Recon SI RI/FS NTCRA NCRA OTHER ESS ESP

See

Field

Pass

Fail

Comments

Observation

N/A

1) Submittal Ontime

2) Submittal Complete

(Are all corresponding sections of the written report, conveyed within

the electronic submittal CD/DVD? Ie. field data sheets, digital pictures,

chemical data and analysis, GIS Feature Classes, other Report Appendices

Final GIS Deliverable - Are all deliverables from the PWS provided per the DID.)

3) Performance Requirements Results

(Do all of the supplied GIS files have correct spatial reference? Is Meta

Data provided for all data sets created by the Contractor? Do the supplied

electronic files, match the Final written report in content and revision?

Can the Final Written Documents be produced in whole from the electronic submittal?)

4) Geospatial Data (shape file or personal geodatabase) for GIS, MicroStation for CADD, must conform to the SDSFIE

for GIS or A/E CADD Standard for CADD.

(a) Data Format

i. ASCII text comma delimited file (table with column headings

and point data only)

ii. ESRI shape file

iii. ESRI Coverage

iv. ESRI personal geodatabase

v. ESRI SDE geodatabase

vi. MicroStation/AutoCAD

vii. Other (Specify Type): ___________________________

(b) Horizontal Datum:

i. WGS 84

ii. NAD 83 (Preferred)

iii. NAD 27

iv. Other (Specify Type): ___________________________

i. NAVD 88 (Preferred)

ii. NAVD 29

iii. Other (Specify Type): ___________________________

(d) Coordinate System/Zone:

i. State of project Location: __________

ii. State Plane Zone (ie. East, West, North, South, Number)

iii. UTM Zone No. _____

Circle One:

South

North

(e) Project:

i. Geographic

ii. Transverse Mercatur

iii. Lambert Conformal Conic

iv. Albers

v. Other (Specify Type): ___________________________

(f) Horizontal Measure:

i. Feet

ii. Meters

iii. Latitude/Longitude

iv. Other (Specify Type): ___________________________

(g) Vertical Measure:

i. Feet

ii. Meters

iii. Other (Specify Type): ___________________________

5) Actual Submittal Date, Contractor, Project Name, and Location,

and Phase of Project, shown on CD or DVD of electronic submittal

Quality Assurance Comments:

Att-D-5 Site Safety Ops Chk Lst

On-Site Safety/Operations QA
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326
Audit Date (Start):_______________ Audit Date (End):______________
To include in part or whole, but not limited to the following checkpoints.
CHECKPOINTS:
1. Documentation Requirements	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. Notice to Proceed from KO
b. Approval Letter for Work Plan/SSHP
c. Approval Letter for UXO Personnel Identified by Name & Position
d. Approval Letter, FAA (If Required)
e. Certificate of Grounding, Lightning Protection (if Required)
f. Explosive Permits/License (If Required)
g. GFE Transfer Documentation (If Required)
h. Approval Letter, Public/Personnel Withdraw Distance 1 Frag in 600 sq. ft., or PAED (as applicable/as Required)
i. Dig Permits for Utilities (If Required).
2. Site-Specific Safety & Health Plan (SSHP)	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. Emergency Notification List Posted & Available
b. Emergency Routes/Maps Available & Issued to Each Team
c. Work Tasks Identified in Hazard Analysis.
d. SDS(s) On-Site.
e. Visitors/Safety Briefing Log Current and Updated
f. All Personnel On-Site in the Proper PPE.
g. Minimum of Two Personnel On-Site First Aid/CPR Trained
h. ANSI Z308.1 compliant First Aid Kit or Kits in the Ratio of one for every 25 persons or less.
3. Technical Management	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. Procedures Established for the Discovery of RCWM
b. Procedures Developed for Discovery of MEC Which Cannot Be Destroyed in Place
c. Project Grid Size, Layout Established
d. Established Procedures for Changed Site Conditions
e. Organizational chart Current and Indicates Assignment, Duties, Responsibilities to Include Geophysical Teams
f. Procedures for Reporting and Disposition of MPPEH
g. Procedures Established for Disposal of MEC in Populated/Sensitive Areas
h. Procedures Established for Managing, reporting, Venting and Disposing of MD and RRD
i. Additional Task and Procedures being Followed (e.g. PAO, Community Relations, Weekly & Monthly Project Status reports)
j. Procedures Established for Recording, reporting and implementing Lessons Learned
k. Limitations Posed and Ability of Geophysical Detection System(s) Chosen.
l. Proper use of Geophysical Detections Systems used
4. Facilities	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. Adequate Work Space & Facilities (Washing, Restrooms etc.)
b. Good Housekeeping (No Fire Hazards, Tripping Hazards etc.)
c. Approved and Suitable Containers for Flammable Storage
d. Approved/Adequate Explosive Storage Facilities
e. Fire/Emergency Exits Clear & Unbarred
f. Personnel Exclusion Zones Maintained
g. Site Security Adequate
5. Equipment	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. Tools Appropriate and Serviceable
b. Proper Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE) Present, Serviceable & Utilized
c. Equipment Calibration Tracked and Logged
d. Survey Equipment Inspected & Serviceable
e. Heavy Equipment Inspected & Serviceable
f. Two Separate Means of Communications, Radio(s)/Cell Phone, Land Line(s).
g. Geophysical Equipment On-Hand & Serviceable
6. Explosive Storage Requirements. Reference AR 190-11 & EP 1110-1-18	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. Proper Storage Containers Type 2 Magazines conforming to standards set forth in Section 55.206 of ATFP 5400.7, ATF Explosives Law and Regulations
b. Placards. Each magazine will display the placards required by DOT regulations in accordance with DOD 6055.9-STD and DA Pam 385-64 for Hazard division of OE stored in the magazine.
c. Explosive Compatibility Groups. Segregated into the appropriate hazard divisions criteria listed in Chapter 3, DOD 6055.9-STD.
d. Physical Security. Contractor shall conduct and document physical security survey, the survey is to determined if fencing or guards are required.
e. Locks. Shall meet the standards listed in Section 55.208 (a) (4), ATFP 5400.7.
f. A key control system will be documented in the Work Plan, AR 190-11 & EP 1110-1-18
g. Lightning Protection. Magazine constructed of metal that has 3/16 inch steel or longer in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 780.
h. Lightning Protection. Magazine grounded in accordance with NFPA.
i. Lightning Protection. Magazine is located at least 6.5 feet from the nearest fence.
j. Lightning Protection. BRAC, IRP and Active Installation will meet the provisions of DOD 6055.9-M. Army installations will also meet the provisions of DA Pamphlet 385-64.
k. Fire Protection. Extinguishers of appropriate size (minimum 10 BC) and type will be located in all explosives storage facilities.
l. Explosive Limits Maintained, 100 lbs. NEW or less
m. Waiver. MACOM approval for storage of commercial of explosives on-site (if required).
7. Explosive Management Plan. Reference Approved WP/49 CFR	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. Signature Authority On-Hand
b. Periodic Inventories Conducted On-Schedule
c. Accountability Records Maintained
d. Lost/Stolen Reporting Procedures In Place
e. Final Disposition Procedures Documented
f. Key Control/Security
8. Transportation of OE. Reference EP 1110-1-18, Chapter 15/49 CFR	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. Hazardous Waste Manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) (if required)
b. Hazard Classification of OE IAW TB 700-2
c. Training of Transporting OE IAW 49 CFR, Part 172 & State Applicable State Requirements
d. Documented Organizational Responsibilities for Transportation of OE
e. Approved Transportation Plan
f. Pre-operational Checks of Vehicles Being Conducted
g. All Operators Licensed For Vehicle
h. Fire Fighting & First Aid Equipment On Board
i. Cargo Properly Segregated/Blocked And Braced and in Proper Container
j. Proper DOT Placards/Fire Fighting Symbols Used
9. UXO Operational Plan. Reference Approved WP	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. Contractor Following Methodology Defined in WP
1. SUXO Conducted Physical Check Prior to Sweep Operations
2. Daily Safety Meeting Conducted by SUXO/SSHO
b. Geophysical Detection Magnetometer Used
1. Pre-Operational Checks Performed Prior to Sweep Operations
2. Operational Condition Annotated in Log Book
3. UXO Teams
4. Quality Control
5. Quality Assurance
c. Operational Teams Operating IAW WP
1. UXO Supervisor Conducted Physical Check Prior to Sweep Operation
2. Pre-Sweep Operational/Safety Brief Conducted
3. Individual Sweep Lanes/Transects Marked IAW WP
4. Contacts Marked & Investigated Properly
5. Results of Sweep Operation Recorded
6. All OE, Inert Items & Scrap Examined by at Least Two UXO Personnel
(a.) AEDA (Range Residue) IAW SOW and Properly Addressed in WP
7. All UXO's Clearly Marked
d. QC Operations IAW WP
e. Non-OE Scrap Being Collected (as Required)
f. OE Scrap Inspected/Vented/Segregated
g. Geophysical Test Grids Appropriate and IAW SOW
10. Disposal Operations Planned On-Site IAW the Approved WP and 60A-1-1-31/1-1-22	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. Disposal Method IAW WP
b. Adequate Security For Disposal Operation
c. Disposal Notification List Available
d. All Necessary Notifications Made
e. Movement of OE Items, Or is OE Consolidation Feasible
f. Protective Measures/Tamping Being Used/Appropriate for OE Being Destroyed
g. Limits of the Exclusion Zone Established and Are All Personnel Aware of Limits
h. Disposal Procedures
1. Misfire Procedures Properly Performed (Electric)
2. Misfire Procedures Properly Performed (Non-Electric)
11. Quality Control Plan. Reference SOW/DID(s)	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. QC Operational/Checks Being Conducted IAW WP
b. QC Grid/Transect Established IAW WP
c. Results of QC Checks Being Recorded
d. Pass/Fail Criteria Clearly defined IAW PWS/DID HNC-003.02
12. Vegetation Removal Reference WP/SSHP	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS
a. Vegetation Removal & Localized, if Required
b. Equipment Operated To Prevent Impact With Possible Surface UXO
c. Cutting Does Not Present Impalement Hazard
d. UXO Personnel Monitoring Cutting Operation
e. UXO Discovered Marked/Handled Appropriately
f. Equipment Being Operated Safely & IAW Equipment Operators Manual/WP
13. OTHER	YES	NO	N/A	COMMENTS

Att-D-6 Chem QA Form

CHEMISTRY QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM (DATA SUBMITTAL)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville				Recommend Payment:	Yes		No
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326				QA Reviewer:
Lot ID:				Date:
				See		Field
		Pass	Fail	Comments		Observation		N/A
1) Submittal Ontime
2) Submittal Complete
	(Electronic Data Deliverables, Daily Quality Control Reports,
	ERIS/FUDSCHEM Data Uploaded to Database, Data Validation
	Report, Chemistry related project communication)
3) Daily Quality Control Reports
	a) Submittal on-time (daily during field work)
	b) Sampling effort in agreement with approved Work Plan.
	c) Any deviation from approved work plan documented
	d) Required attachments included (sample tables, COC,
	additional environmental sampling related project forms)
4) Electronic Data Deliverables (Project Specific library file, DTD file,
	SEDD stage 2A or 2B XML file, Post-review file, Annotated error
	log)
	a) Library and Laboratory data correspond
	b) Error Reports in agreement
	c) Post validation files in agreement with flagged data
5) ERIS/FUDSCHEM Data
	( Data Upload accurate and complete)
6) Data Validation Report
	a) Validation Report addresses all data packages
	b) Identifies analytical problems
	c) Identifies Impact on Data Usability
7) Chemistry Related Project Communication
	(holding times/temperature exceedances, lost or damaged
	samples, other chemistry related issues)
Quality Assurance Comments:

Att-D-7 Analog Geo Anomaly Res

ANALOG GEOPHYSICS QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM (Anomaly Resolution)
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville				Recommend Payment:	Yes		No
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326				QA Reviewer:
Lot ID:				Date:
				See		Field
		Pass	Fail	Comments		Observation		N/A
1) Submittal Ontime/Complete (updated Access Tables)
3) Acceptance Sampling (no unresolved anomalies in sample)
	(Verification of excavated locations, DGM remapping)
4) Root Cause Analyses/Non-conformances Reported & Accepted
5) Any additional field observations/QA (add notes below)
Quality Assurance Comments:

Att-D-8 Analog Geo QA Data subm

ANALOG GEOPHYSICS QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM (DATA SUBMITTAL)
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville				Recommend Payment:	Yes		No
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326				QA Reviewer:
Lot ID:				Date:
				See		Field
		Pass	Fail	Comments		Observation		N/A
1) Submittals Ontime
	(Data submitted periodically throughout
	the progression of field work)
2) Submittal Complete
	(field data sheets, updated Access DB (includes
	QC results, dig results, etc.))
3) Performance Requirements Results
	(all results documented & failures have RCAs:
	Repeatability (Instrument Functionality), Dynamic Repeatability,
	Coverage, Detection & Recovery, Anomaly Resolution,
	Geodetic Equipment Functionality/internal consistency/accuracy)
4) Periodic Recalculation of Performance Requirements (include details in comments section)
	(a) Repeatability (Instrument Functionality)
	(b) Dynamic Repeatability
	(c) Coverage
	(d) Detection and Recovery
	(e) Anomaly Resolution
	(f) Geodetic Equipment Functionality
	(g) Geodetic Accuracy
5) Root Cause Analyses/Non-conformances Reported & Accepted
6) Any additional field observations/QA (add notes below)
Quality Assurance Comments:

Att-D-9 Dynamic Data QA Form

AGC DYNAMIC DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville				Recommend Payment:	Yes		No
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326				QA Reviewer:
Lot ID:				Date:
				See		Field
		Pass	Fail	Comments		Observation		N/A
1) Submittal Ontime (per QAPP Table 14.1 & SOPs)
2) Submittal Complete (per QAPP Table 14.1 & SOPs)
	(SOP Checklists, Daily/Weekly QC reports, processed data files, maps,
	processing notes, target list, field notes, surface sweep memo, updated Access DB)
3) Measurement Performance Criteria Results (QAPP WS #12 & 22)
	(a) all results documented & failures have RCAs
	(b) Instrument Function Test repeatable (25%)
	(c) IVS amplitude & position repeatable (25%, 25cm)
	(d) In-line measurment spacing (<=25cm)
	(e) Coverage (<=0.75m cross track)
	(f) All seeds detected (<=40cm)
	(g) Current >=5A
	(h) Sensor response +-4.2V
	(i) Valid position data (GPS/RTS fix)
	(j) Valid position Data (IMU data valid)
4) Target Selection
	(Target selection Memo provided, following selection criteria, each
	single anomaly has one unique ID, cultural features noted/not selected to dig)
7) Root Cause Analyses/Non-conformances Reported & Accepted
8) Any additional field observations/QA (add notes below)
Quality Assurance Comments:

ATT-D-10 AGC Cued Data QA FORM

AGC CUED DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville				Recommend Payment:	Yes		No
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326				QA Reviewer:
Lot ID:				Date:
				See		Field
		Pass	Fail	Comments		Observation		N/A
1) Submittal Ontime (per QAPP Table 14.1 & SOPs)
2) Submittal Complete (per QAPP Table 14.1 & SOPs)
	(SOP Checklists, Daily/Weekly QC reports, processed data, plots,
	field notes, updated Access DB; ranked dig list)
3) Measurement Performance Criteria Results (QAPP WS #12 & 22)
	(a) All results documented & failures have RCAs
	(b) Instrument Function Test repeatable (25%)
	(c) IVS library match repeatable (0.9)
	(d) IVS position offset (<=.25m)
	(e) IVS background decays acceptable
	(f) Backgrounds acceptable
	(f) All seeds classified as dig (<=30cm offset)
	(g) Current between 5.5-9
	(h) Inversion model supports classification (fitCoh >0.8)
	(i) Inversion model supports classification (fitXY<0.4 from sensor)
5) Root Cause Analyses/Non-conformances Reported & Accepted
6) Any additional field observations/QA (add notes below)
Quality Assurance Comments:

Att-D-11 Intrusive QA Form

CLASSIFICATION INTRUSIVE QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville				Recommend Payment:	Yes		No
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326				QA Reviewer:
Lot ID:				Date:
				See		Field
		Pass	Fail	Comments		Observation		N/A
1) Submittal Ontime/Complete (per QAPP Table 14.1 & SOPs)
	(Access Tables, pictures, SOP checklists)
2) Reacquisiton/Anomaly Resolution equipment functional
	(detectors pass IVS/function test, GPS/RTS <10cm offset from known point)
3) Measurement Performance Criteria Results (QAPP WS #12 & 22)
	(a) Confirm Derived Features match ground truth
	(fit location for 'digs' ≤0.3m from recovered item positions)
	(b) Confirm Derived Features match ground truth
	(predicted size estimates for 'digs' qualitatively match recovered size)
	(c) 100% of predicted Non-TOI are Non-TOI
	(d) Predicted Non-TOI qualitatively match predictions
	(USACE-selected subset of 50)
4) Root Cause Analyses/Non-conformances Reported & Accepted
5) Any additional field observations/QA (add notes below)
Quality Assurance Comments:

Att-D-12 Marine DGM Data

Draft MARINE DIGITAL GEOPHYSICAL MAPPING QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM (DATA SUBMITTAL)
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville				Recommend Payment:	Yes		No
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326				QA Reviewer:
Lot ID				Date:
				See		Field
		Pass	Fail	Comments		Observation		N/A
1) Submittal Ontime
2) Submittal Complete
	(raw/processed data files (mapping & QC), maps,
	field data sheets, updated Access DB (includes
	QC results, target selection tables, etc.)
3) Performance Requirements Results
	(all results documented & failures have RCAs:
	Static Repeatability, Along line measurement spacing,
	Speed, Coverage, Dynamic Detection & Positioning Repeatability,
	Geodetic Equipment Functionality/internal consistency/accuracy)
4) Periodic Recalculation of Performance Requirements (include details in comments section)
	(a) Static Repeatability
	(b) Along Line Measurement Spacing
	(c) Pressure Sensor Check
	(d) Coverage
	(e) Dynamic Detection Repeatability (IVS)
	(f) Dynamic Positioning Repeatability
	(g) Sensor Height Check
	(h) Geodetic Functionality
5) Review of Maps/Gridded data (Assess Potential Field)
	(visual check: background levelling, striping, latency, noise,
	in particular view seed items for dynamic detection repeatability)
6) Target Selection
	(following selection criteria for anomaly & dig lists, each single
	anomaly has one unique ID, cultural features noted/not selected to dig,
	no gridding artifacts, reporting of anomaly characteristics accurate)
7) Root Cause Analyses/Non-conformances Reported & Accepted
8) Any additional field observations/QA (add notes below)
Quality Assurance Comments:

Att-13 Marina Data QA Form

MARINE DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM (DATA SUBMITTAL)
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville				Recommend Data be Accepted:	Yes		No
IM Phase I (066, 068, 110)/CSP (051, 052, 061), Redstone Arsenal, AL, HGL DO F0326				QA Reviewer:
Lot ID:				Date:
				See		Field
		Pass	Fail	Comments		Observation		N/A
1) Submittal Ontime
2) Submittal Complete
	(raw/processed data files, maps / GIS,
	field data sheets, QC results)
3) Performance Requirements Results
	(all results documented & failures have RCAs)
4) Periodic Check of Performance Requirements (include details in comments section)
	(a) Side Scan Positioning
	(b) Bathymetry Calibration / Patch Test
	(c) Bar / Water Surface Checks
	(d) Cross-line Checks
	(e) IHO Order 1 or better
	(f) Speed
	(g) Coverage
	(h) Geodetic Functionality
5) Review of Maps/Data/Videos
	(visual check: bathymetry (e.g tide-corrected, sound speed
	corrected), side-scan mosaics, video quality & step-outs)
6) Target Selection
	(Potential MEC items identified in side-scan or video)
7) Root Cause Analyses/Non-conformances Reported & Accepted
8) Any additional field observations/QA (add notes below)
Quality Assurance Comments:

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Sep 8, 2022.