TE-3a(1)_Quality_Standard_Definitions_and_Calculations.doc

DOC document 39 KB Posted

Attached to
Rotary Wing Aircraft Maintenance Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
FA286018R0010
Issued by
Department of the Air Force Headquarters District Washington

About this file

STANDARDS DEFINITIONS

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Rotary Wing Aircraft Maintenance, newest first.
File Type Posted
Revisedv3_Attachment_2_Pricing_Matrix.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
FA286018R00100004.pdf PDF
FA286018R00100003.pdf PDF
Revisedv2_Attachment_2_Pricing_Matrix.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Revised_TE-6_Instructions_and_TO_Summary.docx DOCX document
FA286018R00100002.pdf PDF
Revised_TE-2_Memorandum_of_Agreement_Index.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
QUESTION_AND_ANSWER.pdf PDF
Revised_Attachment_2_Pricing_Matrix.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Revised_Attachment_1_-_Performance_Work_Statement.pdf PDF
Revised_TE-2_Memorandum_of_Agreement.pdf PDF
FA286018R00100001.pdf PDF
TE-10_11th_Wing_Plans.docx DOCX document
TE-5_Performance_Thresholds.docx DOCX document
TE-2_Memorandum_of_Agreement_Index.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment_4_DD_Form_254.pdf PDF
TE-10a_811_OG_Contingency_Plan.docx DOCX document
Attachment_6_CBA_DynCorp_and_IAMAW.pdf PDF
Attachment_-_9_Client_Authorization_Letter_Sample.docx DOCX document
TE-13_Facility_Management.docx DOCX document
Attachment_-_8_Consent_Letter_Sample.docx DOCX document
TE-3_Performance_Standards.xls XLS spreadsheet
Attachment_2_Pricing_Matrix.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
FA286018R0010.pdf PDF
TE-1_Definitions_and_Acronyms.doc DOC document
TE-4a_Workload.docx DOCX document
Attachment_7_CBA_Dyncorp_FCF_and_IAMAW.pdf PDF
TE-8_Government_Furnished_Facilities_Square_Footage.doc DOC document
TE-4_Flying_Hours.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
TE-7_Required_Meetings.docx DOCX document
TE-12_Ice_and_Snow_Removal.docx DOCX document
Attachment11GFPModuleAttachment.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment_3_QASP.pdf PDF
Attachment_1_-_Performance_Work_Statement.pdf PDF
Attachment_-_5_Wage_Determination_2018-0051_Revision_1.txt TXT text file
TE-9_Ramp_Freeze_Proceedures.doc DOC document
TE-6_Instructions_and_TO_Summary.docx DOCX document
Attachment_-_10_Past_Performance_Questionaire.DOCX DOCX document
TE-4b_Workload_Estimates.docx DOCX document
TE-11_Appearance_Standards.docx DOCX document
Technical_Exhibit_Library.docx DOCX document
Show all 41

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

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

Text version

Reference Number: Solicitation FA2860-18-R-0010 Technical Exhibit 3a, Attachment 1

QUALITY STANDARD Definitions and Calculations

STANDARD / CALCULATION METHOD:

A. Departure Reliability Rate (DRR). This is a leading metric to show maintenance problems. The metric reflects the percentage of departures that are on-time. There are two types of departures for this contract:

1. Maintenance Distinguished Visitor Departure Reliability Rate (MDVDRR).

This formula will be used to calculate the DV departure reliability rate:

MDVDRR (%) = Number of DV Departures – Number of Maintenance Delays x 100 Number of DV Departures

2. Maintenance Local Departure Reliability Rate (MLDRR).

This formula will be used to calculate the local (Lcl) departure reliability rate:

MLDRR (%) = Number of Local Departures – Number of Maintenance Delays x 100 Number of Local Departures

B. Mission Capable (MC) Rate. Though this is a lagging indicator, the MC rate is perhaps the best-known yardstick for measuring a unit’s performance. It is the percentage of possessed hours for aircraft that are FMC or PMC for specific measurement periods (e.g., monthly or annual). A low MC rate may indicate a unit is experiencing many hard breaks, parts supportability shortfalls or workforce management issues. Maintenance managers should look for workers deferring repairs to other shifts, inexperienced workers, lack of parts from LRS, poor in-shop scheduling, high cannibalization rates or training deficiencies. High commitment rates may also contribute to a lower MC rate. The key is to focus on negative trends and identify systemic, underlying causes. Further, the root factors of the MC rate should be measured, evaluated and reported through the use of the TNMCM, TNMCS and NMCB rates.

MC (%) = FMC Hours + PMC Hours x 100

Possessed Hours

C. Total Not Mission Capable Maintenance (TNMCM) Rate. Though a lagging indicator, the TNMCM rate is perhaps the most common and useful metric for determining if maintenance is being performed quickly and accurately. It is the average percentage of possessed aircraft (calculated monthly/annually) that are unable to meet primary assigned missions for maintenance reasons. Any aircraft that is unable to meet any of its wartime missions is considered Not Mission Capable (NMC). The TNMCM is the amount of time aircraft are in NMCM plus Not Mission Capable Both (NMCB) status. Maintenance managers should look for a relationship between other metrics such as Repeat/Recur, Break Rate and Fix Rate to the TNMCM Rate. A strong correlation could indicate heavy workloads (e.g., people are over tasked), poor management, training problems or poor maintenance practices. The TNMCM is also called “out for maintenance.”

TNMCM (%) = NMCM Hrs + NMCB Hrs x 100

Possessed Hours

D. Deferred (or Delayed) Discrepancy (DD) Rate (DDR) Awaiting Maintenance. The DDR is a leading indicator that should be closely evaluated in comparison to other metrics. This rate represents the average deferred discrepancies across the unit's average possessed aircraft fleet. Discrepancies are considered deferred when: a) they are discovered and the decision is made to defer them, or b) discrepancies are scheduled with a start date greater than 5 calendar days after the discovery date. Although minor maintenance actions must sometimes be deferred or delayed to a more opportune time, maintenance should try to keep this rate as low as possible. If delayed discrepancies can’t be scheduled/combined with a more extensive maintenance action, maintenance schedulers should routinely schedule their aircraft down for a day when required to work deferred discrepancies. The DDR metric can measure AWM + AWP rates, however the individual AWM rates is the focus of this metric. The following defer codes shall be included in this metric: Awaiting Maintenance (AWM), Awaiting Fuel Cell (AFC), Awaiting Corrosion/Paint (COR), Awaiting Sheet Metal Shop (SHT), and Awaiting Downtime (ADT), and Awaiting Phase Inspection (PHA).

AWM DDR (%) = Total (Snapshot) AWM Discrepancies Average Aircraft Possessed

E. Average Hours Remaining Until Phase. This metric is a snapshot that shows the average hours remaining until next phase inspection for the fleet. Aircraft undergoing programmed depot maintenance will be excluded from this metric.

Avg = Total Hours Remaining Until Phase

Total Aircraft F. Maintenance Scheduling Effectiveness (MSE). This is a leading indicator that measures success in the unit’s ability to plan and complete inspections and periodic maintenance on-time per the maintenance plan. Deviations to the plan are recorded. A low MSE rate may indicate a unit is experiencing turbulence on the flight line. This indicator is primarily used as feedback to maintenance managers on the success and adherence to scheduled maintenance plans and actions. To compute the MSE, you must know the number of maintenance actions scheduled and accomplished as scheduled along with each action’s weighted value (based on the importance of the event and established by MAJCOM directives).

MSE (%) = Total Points Earned x 100

Total Points Possible

File details come from the government source that posted it.