Attachment_III_-_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVELIANCE PLAN (QASP)

APPROVAL DOCUMENT

DPM Contract 13 December 2018

CONTRACTING ACTIVITY: Travis AFB CA

CONTRACT NAME: DPM

SOLICITATION NUMBER: FA4427

ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST: $

COORDINATION DATE

Regina Whatley/JPPSO-NC Quality Assurance/ DSN: 692-9293

Quality Assurance Program Manager/DSN: 424-7728

APPROVED:

Contracting Officer/DSN: 424-7740

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for

Joint Personal Property Shipping Office (JPPSO)-Direct Procurement Method

(DPM)

December 13, 2018

Table of Contents 1 Overview

1.1 Contracted Services

2 Roles and Responsibilities

2.1 Multi Functional Team (MFT)

2.2 Contracting Officer (CO)

2.3 Contracting Officer Representative Supervisor

2.4 Contracting Officer‟s Representative (COR)

2.8 Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC)

3 Performance Assessment

3.1 Strategy

3.2 Assessment Methods

3.2.1 Collecting Customer Feedback

3.2.2 Use of Metrics

3.2.3 Trend Analysis

3.2.4 External Assessment

3.3 Performance Objectives (PO) and Assessment Items (AI)

Table 1 Performance Objectives

3.4 Report of Contractor Services DD Form 2773

3.5 Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) on DD Form 2772

3.6 Performance Assessment File

3.7 Types of Performance Assessment

4 Reporting Performance Results

4.1 Certificate of Service

4.2 Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR)

5 Assessment Records

Attachments Attachment 1 Performance Assessment Report Attachment 2 Certificate of Service (COS)

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 Contracted Services To provide for the preparation of personal property of Department of Defense personnel for shipment and/or storage and related services for Southwestern Colorado.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 Multi-Functional Team (MFT) The goal of the MFT is to maintain the highest quality representative services to our customers and propose and initiate improvements through the life of the contract. Under this concept, contract assessment will be focused on ensuring the contract meets requirements as well as continuing to meet the needs of the customer(s). The MFT will strive to:

2.1.1 Develop and foster a partnership with the contractor for the common goal of continuous improvement. Maintain effective communications with the contractor for the overall success of the contract.

2.1.2 Identify opportunities to improve performance throughout the life of the contract. This includes benchmarking against industry standards and practices, identifying initiatives, assessing risks associated with initiatives, and using this plan for implementing initiatives and monitoring success of implementation.

2.1.3 Support senior leadership by providing meaningful data reporting, briefings, and early warning of significant variances in cost, schedule or performance.

2.1.4 Core MFT members for this contract are the Contracting Officer (CO), Contracting Officer Representatives (COR) and the requiring activity technical representatives.

2.1.5 General Duties and Responsibilities

2.1.5.1. The requiring activity develops Performance Objectives (PO) and Assessment Items (AI), identifying mission critical Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements requiring evaluation.

2.1.5.2 Conducts an annual review of this plan and implements changes if needed to maintain effectiveness.

2.1.5.3 Makes changes to the PWS when needed. Prepares documentation and advocates for funding as needed. Reviews directives which may impact PWS.

2.2 Contracting Officer (CO)

2.2.1 Ensures requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and its supplements are met. Ensures compliance with the terms of the contract and safeguards the interests of the government. Ensures contractors receive impartial, fair and equitable treatment.

2.2.2 The CO is the only person with authority to direct the contractor, make interpretations of and changes to the contract and resolve disputes or conflicts with the contractor.

2.2.3 Conducts contract specific training for CORs and delegates COR authority for inspection and/or acceptance of services.

2.2.4 Informs the contractor of the names, duties, and limitations of authority for CORs assigned to assess the contract.

2.2.5 Participates in the preparation and submission of Annual Execution Reporting in accordance with AFI 63-138, Acquisition of Services.

2.2.6. Performs the duties of Approving Official (AO) on annual Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR).

2.3 Contracting Officer Representative (COR) Supervisor

2.3.1 Nominates CORs IAW COR Nomination Memorandum contained in MP5301.602-2(d) and affirms all information and assumes responsibilities contained within the memorandum.

2.3.2 Attends COR management training provided by the QAPC and ensures CORs have received DAU, local, and contract specific training prior to assuming duties.

2.3.3 Ensures CORs are technically qualified to perform COR duties.

2.3.4 Considers COR performance as part of their annual performance appraisals.

2.4 Functional Commander (FC) The first-level official having functional responsibility for the receipt of contracted services. The FC retains overall responsibility to ensure contracted services adequately support the mission needs of the organization.

2.4.1 Ensures CORs assess, document and report contractor performance IAW this plan.

2.4.2 Remains current on mission changes that could drive necessary contract modifications.

2.4.3 Reviews COR submitted monthly surveillance data for adverse performance trends. When applicable, coordinates with the CO to address problems or trends with contractor performance.

2.4.4 Prepares and submits a monthly COR reports to the CO NLT than the 10th workday of each month that covers the previous month‟s reporting.

2.4.5 Notifies the MFT of any updates and changes to applicable directives that could impact the PWS.

2.5 Contracting Officer Representative (COR)

2.5.1 Performs duties and responsibilities designated by the CO in the CO‟s Designation Letter.

Assesses documents and reports contractor performance IAW this plan and PWS requirements.

2.5.2 Establishes and maintains an assessment file IAW this plan. Upon termination of COR designation, turns over all files and documentation to subsequent assigned personnel.

2.5.3 Remains aware of actual or potential conflicts of interest and immediately notifies the CO.

Remains abreast of changes in terms and conditions of the contract.

2.5.4 Participates in requirements definitions and pre-award activities as needed.

2.5.5 Develops, maintains and utilizes checklists as needed for assessment consistency and effectiveness.

2.5.6 Prepares Contract Deficiency Reports (CDR) when contractor performance does not meet PWS requirements. Evaluates contractor responses to CDRs for adequacy of corrective actions and actions taken to prevent recurrence and performs follow up assessments as needed.

2.5.7 Participates in MFT meetings and recommends updates to the PWS and this plan as needed.

2.6 Senior COR (SCOR)

2.6.1 Performs COR duties IAW this plan and ensures this plan is being complied with by the other CORs.

2.6.2 Prepares and submits a monthly Certificate of Service (COS) to the FD containing performance data from all COR assessments. The COS format is contained in Attachment of this plan.

2.6.3 Serves as the focal point for COR performance assessment activities, documentation, reporting and issuance through resolution of CDRs.

2.7 Quality Assurance Specialist (QAS)

2.7.1 Reviews COR reports and documentation for completeness and full accomplishment.

2.7.2 Advises and assists COR’s upon request in effective and adequate quality assurance practices as well as resolving issues associated with contractor assessment.

2.7.3 Assists upon request in identification of critical Performance Objectives (PO) for development of SOW Services Summary (SS) items. The POs are then included in this plan as periodically assessed items. Assists in identification of any other Assessment Items (AI) from the SOW that don’t necessarily rise to the criticality of the SS items but may still need periodic assessment. The AIs are then included in this plan as periodically assessed items.

2.7.4 Leads the MFT in development of this plan and ensures at minimum that an annual review of this plan is conducted.

2.7.5 Reviews CDRs prior to being issued to the contractor. Ensures CDRs are concisely stated, accurate and effective to convey the full scope of the discrepancy to the contractor. Assists CORs in review of contractor responses to CDRs upon request.

2.7.6 Participates in CO contract specific training upon request, in particular, trains CORs of the specifics of this plan.

2.7.7 Audits the contractor’s inspection system if needed based on COR findings and trends.

2.7.8 Ensures CDRs are concisely stated, accurate and effective to convey the full scope of the discrepancy to the contractor. Assists CORs in review of contractor responses to CDRs upon request.

2.7.9 Audits the contractor’s inspection system if needed based on findings and trends.

2.7.10 Performs Staff Assistance Visits (SAV) on CORs annually and provides written results to the CO and FD.

2.8 Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC)

2.8.1 Develops COR training lesson plans. Manages and implements the Quality Assurance Training Program to include COR refresher training. Assists in development of local quality assurance related training as requested.

2.8.2 Provides COR Supervisor Orientation Training prior of their commencement of duties as COR supervisor and/or FD.

2.8.3 Manages documentation of initial and refresher COR training via the COR Training Tool

(CORT).

2.8.4 Provides support upon request to acquisition teams in the development of contract requirements, ensuring requirements are clearly stated and enforceable; aids in development of the PWS, SS and QASPs.

3 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

3.1 Strategy To rely to the maximum extent on the Contractor’s Quality efforts to ensure contract requirements are met. QAS validation of the effectiveness of the contractor’s quality efforts will be accomplished in the event CORs begin to identify inordinate numbers of contract nonconformities or when the MFT deems that negative performance trends exist. CORs will assess the contractor’s performance in a manner to sufficiently validate acceptable delivery of services and gain confidence in the contractor’s performance. The level of COR assessment will then adjusted through this plan to maintain that confidence.

3.2 Assessment Types and Methods A number of assessment methods may be considered for use. The selection of the assessment method is dependent on the characteristics of the service assessed. The MFT will determine which assessment methods are the most effective and preferable and include them in this plan. In some limited cases, 100 percent inspections may be appropriate but in most, periodically sampling a service is sufficient.

3.2.1 Collecting Customer Feedback Customer Feedback is a valuable method of performance assessment in the type of service this contract delivers. CORs must establish a customer feedback process that ensures they receive ALL customer comments provided, both positive and negative. CORs must then validate the feedback and ensure it is documented in the monthly COS taking great care to exclude any contractor personnel recognition.

3.2.1.1 Negative Customer Feedback

3.2.1.1.1 CORs must first validate negative customer feedback against PWS requirements.

3.2.1.1.2 If negative feedback is discovered to be invalid, the COR will, when possible, inform the customer of the reason(s) why it is not valid.

3.2.1.1.3 For valid negative comments received, the COR will notify the contractor‟s representative to allow opportunity for investigation. If warranted, the COR may elect to prepare a PAR with Finding to document performance that is not in compliance with contract requirements. Once again, the COR should provide feedback to the customer on the status of validated negative feedback when possible.

3.2.1.2 Positive Customer Feedback Positive customer feedback must also be validated by CORs to ensure the feedback received is not simply a normal contract requirement. Validated positive feedback is also valuable in further reporting such as the COS and CPAR.

3.2.2 Use of Metrics Detailed data should be used as much as possible to document and report contractor success or failure in meeting contract requirements. An example of this would be in reporting that a PO made the threshold of 5 customer complaints or less and then stating that 3 actual validated complaints were received rather than just stating “satisfactory”. The type of complaint is also helpful in trend analysis where the same complaint is repeatedly received even though the threshold may not have been broken.

3.2.3 Trend Analysis The QAS and CORs should continually be aware of and analyze performance assessment data for trends. Both desirable and undesirable trends should be used in subsequent reporting of contract performance.

3.3 Performance Objectives (Pos) The POs listed in Table 1 identify the minimum performance assessment requirements that must be periodically accomplished.

3.3.1 POs mirror the Services Summary (SS) in the PWS. Each PO has a corresponding performance threshold which is the minimum acceptable performance level and the PWS reference paragraph. Each PO also contains a method of assessment for the COR to use, the minimum frequency at which to accomplish the assessments and the COR responsible to perform the assessment.

3.3.2 The government maintains the right to assess all contract requirements but will make every attempt not to delay the contractor's workflow. All assessments of the contractor must be documented and reported.

Table 1 Performance Objectives from PWS SDS

Frequency: Monthly

Evaluator: COR

PO 1 Preparation, Packing, Loading, and Containerization of Personal Property for onward movement

Threshold: No more than 3% of total number of shipments are incorrectly packed/loaded/ containerized per month.

PWS Part 1, Paragraph A.4 and Paragraph A.7 Method Of Assessment:

Evaluate 50% or more of contractor shipments each month utilizing DD Form 2773. To determine 50% of a contractor’s shipment actions, multiply the total amount of shipments made by .50 and round up to the next whole number. The COR may conduct the evaluation at the members residence or call the member to conduct the evaluation over the phone. COR will document inspection results on DD 2773 and forward to JPPSO- NC/COR. If JPPSO-NC/COR determines that there were too many items in error in the shipment to rate it satisfactory, JPPSO-NC/ COR will count the shipment against the 3% number of this PO threshold. Discrepancies will be noted and the contractor will be notified via CDR.

Frequency: Monthly

Evaluator: COR

PO 2 Pick-up/Delivery of Personal Property

Threshold: No more than 5% per month of the total number of shipments, or validated customer complaints, for untimely pick-up/delivery.

PWS Part 1, Paragraph A.3 and PWS Part 1, Paragraph A.13 Method Of Assessment:

Evaluate 50% or more of contractor shipments each month utilizing DD Form 2773. To determine 50% of a contractor„s shipment actions, multiply the total amount of shipments made by .80 and round up to the next whole number. The COR may conduct the evaluation at the members residence or call the member to conduct the evaluation over the phone. COR will document inspection results on DD 2773 and forward to JPPSO- NC/COR. If JPPSO-NC/COR determines that there were too many items in error in the shipment to rate it satisfactory, JPPSO-NC/ COR will count the shipment against the 5% number of this PO threshold. Discrepancies will be noted and the contractor will be notified via CDR

Frequency: Monthly

Evaluator: COR

PO 3 Pick-up, return, and proper preparation of Documentation.

Threshold: 98% on-time return of completed, accurate, legible documentation to JPPSO per month. 96% on-time pickup of documentation from JPPSO per month.

PWS Part 1, Paragraph A.2.b, Paragraph A.2.i, Paragraph A.8.a, Paragraph A.8.c, and Paragraph A.8.d

Method Of Assessment:

Satisfactory rating is default for this PO–If documentation is not correct or received within PWS timeframe, a CDR will be issued to the contractor/CO. Three CDRs in any six month period may affect the CPAR rating.

Frequency: Quarterly

Evaluator: COR

PO 4 Maintain adequate facilities and vehicles.

Less than three violations per quarter based on inadequate facilities or vehicles as outlined in Appendix D and E of the DTR.

PWS Part 1, Paragraph A.10 and DTR Appendix D and E.

Method Of Assessment:

Quarterly inspect contactor's facilities

Frequency:

Monthly/Quarterly

Evaluator: COR

PO 5 Protection and Accountability of Government-Owned Containers (GOCs).

No more than 2% of total number of GOCs improperly protected/constructed during this quarter. Less than two failures per month to re-coop GOCs within specified time frame.

PWS Part 1, Paragraph A.7.a, Paragraph A.7.a.(1), Paragraph A.7.e Method Of Assessment:

a. COR will spot-check containers during P/U/delivery of HHG shipments.

b. COR will randomly check to ensure re-coopering of GOCs is performed by the Contractor, when re-coopering is authorized by COR OR JPPSO-NC/COR only. All repairs will be done to the satisfaction of the COR and prior to use of container’s. COR will ensure the Contractor, on an as needed basis, delivers GOC„s to the site identified by JPPSO

c. As a one-time check, the COR ensures the new outbound DPM contractor picked up the serviceable empty GOCs from the previous contractor(s) no later than 15 calendar days after commencement of the contract.

d. The COR will validate that the inspection and disposition schedule of serviceable/unserviceable containers was complied with, serviceable or unserviceable containers have not been commingled, and that these two categories of containers were kept segregated.

e. The JPPSO-NC/COR will validate that contractors have provided a GOC report, fifteen (15) days after the contract start date and thereafter by the 5th of the month and that the contractor maintains an accurate, up to date count of all GOCs.

3.4 Report of Contractor Services DD Form 2773 Used to document assessment data of the contract as it is accomplished. This form is an official government record of inspections of the POs contained in this plan and the PWS.

3.4.1 Completed DD Form 2773's will be maintained in the assessment folder. At the completion of the contract, the SCOR will contact the CO for disposition instructions of the assessment records. These forms may be maintained in soft-copy as long as there is ample backup to ensure loss of data cannot occur.

3.5 Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) on DD Form 2772

3.5.1 CORs must determine whether unacceptable performance was within the contractor’s control. If unacceptable performance is determined to be attributable to the contractor, the COR will initiate a CDR.

3.5.2 If performance is determined to be unacceptable, CORs must inform the contractor's representative that performance is unacceptable and why, and request his or her initials and date on the CDR. By initialing and dating the form, the contractor's representative is acknowledging that they were informed of the unacceptable performance but is not necessarily agreeing that the performance is unacceptable. If the contractor wishes to dispute the results of the assessment, the COR will refer them to the Contracting Officer for resolution.

3.5.3 Completing the CDR

3.5.3.1 The COR initiates a CDR by filling in Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, and 6. The report number in Block 2 will be made up of the first two letters of the contractors name, the last two digits of the calendar year and a three digit number starting with 001 and progressing upward throughout the calendar year. The COR will insert the Contractor response due date in Block 9 by stating “Please Respond by (date)”. This due date is normally ten working days from the date entered in Block 5a. The COR then presents the form to the contractor.

3.5.3.2 The contractor completes Blocks 9 and 10 with their response to the discrepancy by the due date entered in Block 9 and returns it to the COR.

3.5.3.3 Upon receipt from the contractor, the COR reviews the contractor's response and determines if any further action is necessary for correction and prevention of recurrence.

3.5.3.4 If the COR determines that no further action is necessary the COR responds “yes” in Block 5c and completes Block 11. The COR sends a copy to the contractor and files the DD 2772.

3.5.3.5 If the COR determines the Contractor's input in Block 9 is not satisfactory, the COR responds "No" in block 5c and completes Block 11. The COR inputs "JPPSO-NC" in Block 8a.

The COR inputs the Contractor's name in block 8b and forwards the DD 2772 and all supporting data to:

JPPSO-NC, DPM Manager

121 S. Tejon St., Suite 800 Colorado Springs, CO 80903

3.5.3.6 JPPSO‟s DPM Manager reviews DD Form 2772 and all supporting data, gathers COR and/or Contractor inputs as necessary and determines necessary action needed. The DPM Manager advises the FD of the determination made. Upon concurrence, the FD fills in the action taken in Block 12 and signs Block 7 for the Contracting Officer. The FD informs both the COR and the Contractor of what action has been decided upon. The FD should consult the CO whenever there is a question of the appropriate course of action to be taken.

3.5.3.7 A copy of each CDR will be provided to the QAS when initiated and also when finalized. This provides the QAS the opportunity to assist or advise CORs, if needed, as well as tracking CDR status.

3.6 Performance Assessment File CORs establish and maintain a centralized Performance Assessment File. The file must contain the following at minimum, organized as the SCOR determines necessary:

Section 1 – This Plan

Section 2 - Contractor’s Quality Plan and/or Procedures

Section 3 – Continuity Log A chronological record of actions taken in the performance of COR duties providing continuity for the COR staff. Items contained in this log are at the discretion of the SCOR and COR staff. The items are meant to be helpful in maintaining continuity amongst the COR members.

Section 4 - Appointment Letter/Designation Letter/Training Certificates Copies of the COR‟s Designation Letter from the CO, and evidence that all required training has been accomplished.

Section 5 – Records Proof that all POs and AIs as applicable have been assessed IAW this plan. Records as applicable of CDRs that were issued to the contractor Any other records deemed necessary by the SCOR.

Section 6 - Other Items (Optional): Optional COR use for any other items they feel is pertinent to this contract.

3.7 Types of Performance Assessment Performance Assessment is accomplished as follows:

3.7.1 COR and QAS Assessment CORs assess and document the POs in Table 1. The QAS will use data and nonconformities discovered to validate the effectiveness of the contractor’s quality efforts if needed. QASs are quality system focused ensuring the contractor’s quality system is effective and complies with PWS requirements. All assessment results are documented in the monthly COS.

3.7.2 Contractor Self Assessments The contractor internally assesses their performance IAW their quality plan or instructions and documents the results. The contractor corrects and takes actions to prevent recurrence of self-identified nonconformities and maintains records as objective evidence.

3.7.3 External Party Assessments The QAS and/or CORs review and report external party assessment reports to validate performance against PWS requirements. External assessments are assessments accomplished by entities outside of the immediate MFT such as the Regional Storage Management Office (RSMO). Results of any of these external assessments will be included in the monthly COS. The QAS will use data and nonconformities discovered by external assessments to trace back the effectiveness of the contractor’s quality system. PARs with Findings may be issued for deficiencies identified when within the scope of the PWS.

4 Reporting Performance Results

4.1 Certificate of Service (COS) CORs report all performance assessment results in a monthly COS to the QAS and CO. Performance data reported in the COS certifies services provided were accepted by the government and provides summarized data for further reporting such as CPARS as well as feedback to the contractor. Accuracy and completeness of each COS is critical for further reporting and extreme care must be taken by the SCOR and CORs to ensure accuracy.

4.2 Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) The annual report of contractor performance used to provide past performance information to future source selection teams for consideration in other acquisitions. Accuracy, completeness and ratings within the CPAR are critical and mainly based on the twelve monthly COSs that are generated annually. When writing the CPAR, the MFT should keep in mind what information would be most helpful to communicate to source selection teams.

5 Assessment Records Maintained in the performance assessment folder, other designated locations or the contract file for the life of the contract or as specified by the records disposition schedule. The CO may specify a transfer of these records to the contracting office at the conclusion of the contract. The SCOR must contact the CO for the final disposition instructions of COR records upon contract completion.

Attachment 1, Certificate of Service

XX XXX XX

MEMORANDUM FOR:

FROM: JPPSO-NC/DPM

SUBJECT: CONTRACT NBR Certificate of Service (COS) for Month/ Year

SECTION I: Performance Assessment by Service Delivery Summary (SDS)

Performance Assessment By SDS Metric.

Only three ratings may be used in this section: Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory defined as follows:

SATISFACTORY: The contractor has complied with the requirements of the contract;

deficiencies, if any, were minor, re-performable, and easily correctable; all required tasks have been completed within the specified standards. This is the highest rating a contractor can receive during a performance assessment audit.)

MARGINAL: The contractor has met most of the requirements of the contract but sufficient problems exist, or an adverse trend was identified.

Performance Objective and PWS Reference

Threshold Metrically Stated Assessment Result and Rating

Preparation, Packing, Loading, and Containerization of Personal Property for onward movement Part 1, Paragraph A.4 and Paragraph A.7

No more than 3% of total number of shipments are incorrectly packed/loaded/containerized per month.

Satisfactory – less than 1% of shipments were packed incorrectly for SCH III. Discrepancy corrected on spot.

Pick-up/Delivery of Personal Property Part 1, Paragraph A.3

No more than 5% per month of the total number of shipments, or validated customer complaints, for untimely pick- up/delivery.

Satisfactory – 0% customer complaints received from members

Pick-up, return, and proper preparation of Documentation Part 1, Paragraph A.2.b, Paragraph A.2.i, Paragraph A.8.a, Paragraph A.8.c, Paragraph A.8.d, and Paragraph A.12.c.

PWS threshold: 98% on-time return of completed, accurate, legible documentation to JPPSO per month.

96% on-time pickup of documentation from JPPSO per month.

Present Threshold: Rating is Satisfactory default for this PO.

This PO will be rated Marginal

Satisfactory

Maintain adequate facilities and vehicles.

Part 1, Paragraph A.10, Paragraph A.7.h, and DTR Appendix D and E.

Less than three violations per semiannual facility assessment based on inadequate facilities or vehicles as outlined in Appendix

N/A no inspection was done for this month

Protection and Accountability of Government- Owned Containers (GOCs).

Part 1, Paragraph A.7.a, Paragraph A.7.a.(1), Paragraph A.7.e, Paragraph A.7.g

No more than 2% of total number of GOCs improperly protected/constructed during this semiannual. Less than two failures per month to re-coop GOCs within specified time frame.

Satisfactory – less than 1% of GOC were improperly protected.

Discrepancy was corrected on spot

SECTION II: Strengths, Weaknesses and Other Factors (The COR will determine how this information is captured in this section).

A. Strengths Observed During COR Assessment (Comments will be accompanied by a brief description of the impact and benefit that the government has received over and beyond the requirements of the PWS.)

B. Weaknesses Observed During COR Assessment. Weaknesses may include non-compliance of PWS requirement(s), area(s) of concern, recommended improvement area(s); etc.

Weaknesses will be accompanied by the nature of the impact to the Government. Weaknesses that involve non-compliance of PWS requirements that were not already identified and documented by the contractor’s quality system must be documented on a DD Form 2772 detailing the non-compliance. The DD Form 2772 will contain a suspense date giving the contractor the opportunity to respond.

C. Customer Feedback

D. Contractor Discrepancy Reports (CDR)

1. CDRs initiated during the period- If none state “None”;

2. CDRs remaining open from previous period with action pending- If none state

“None”;

3. CDRs Closed during the period: If none state “None”

E. Other Government Inspections Results If none, state none

SECTION III: Additional Comments:

Any information pertaining to performance to include FD comments, if desired. Comments or bullets outlining any additional performance data such as external inspections (RSMO), etc.

SECTION IV: COR Listing and PWS Functional Area:

Name and position Position Phase 1 Training Date

Phase 2 Training Date

Refresher

COR

Training

Phone

Regina Whatley SCOR

//SIGNED//lwf//Date