QA 2 May 2012.docx

Questions and Answers as of 2 May 2012 Q1. The quality control plan must provide a student complaint methodology for communication with students and resolution of complaints. The way I read the above, it wants a method the students communicate with the students to resolve complaints.

A1. The primary means of communicating pos/neg feedback to us and the contractor is via the student course critique (Appendix 3 of the QASP). We intended to create the idea of a feedback loop: student submits negative comments on critique, contractor notes comments then submits critique to COR, COR works with contractor and perhaps even the unit, CO, or Specialist to resolve issue. If and when the issue is successfully resolved, word filters back the student.

On the other hand, not everything will rise to this burden of effort. Some "complaints" may be dealt with on the spot without outside involvement. For example, if the AC goes out in the middle of summer, and the students "complain" about the uncomfortable learning environment, but the contractor agrees to move to another classroom with better AC, then the issue is resolved. The evaluation criteria (FAR 52.212-2) has been revised to better reflect this process.

Q2. The quality control plan must identify how corrective actions will be taken to ensure timely acceptance in accordance with the PWS. Timely acceptance of what in accordance to the PWS?

A2. I think we deviated off the PWS; we referenced it when no such reference exists. If a corrective action is needed for a student "complaint," it should be dealt with in a timely manner, but timely is not defined in the PWS. In a best case scenario a complaint is dealt with immediately, next best before the end of the course, or worst case before the start of the next course. This is highly dependent on the severity of the issue. The evaluation criteria (FAR 52.212-2) has been revised to reference the student course critique vice the PWS.

Q3. QASP paragraph 7.1 says Appendix 3 is Corrective Action report, but it is the AMC Form 246, Student critique. Para 7.2 says AMC Form 246 Student Course Critique as Appendix 4, but the Table of Contents lists the Performance Assessment Report as Appendix 4. Para 7.3 indicates Performance Assessment Report is Appendix 5 but this is actually Appendix 4.

A3. The QASP has been corrected to reflect the proper references.

Q4. Appendix 1, last objective block “Provide FAA certified pilot and flight engineer instructors”… How does “COR shall receive no more than one valid student complaint concerning quality of instruction during a training session quarter” tie into the objective of providing FAA certified pilot and flight engineer instructors?

A4. The original performance threshold was moved to the first performance objective and has been replaced with “Submit names of VC-25 assigned instructors and corresponding certs on an annual basis.” Additionally, the method of surveillance and metric has been changed to correspond with this performance threshold.

Q5. The forms CAR and PAR, Appendix 2&4, what are their form numbers? These look like locally produced forms and both are negative and neither addresses a contractor’s ability to have exceed the terms of expectations of the Government. I would think the PAR would be more in line with section 6, Performance Requirements and Method of Surveillance.

A5. The CAR and PAR do not have form numbers; the reports are built off of templates that have been issued by SAF/AQC. The CPARS addressed the contractor’s ability to have exceeded the expectations of the Government as outlined in paragraph 6.4. The language in paragraph 6.4 previously indicated that this is only for CPARS-applicable contractors. This has been revised.

Q6. While looking for AMC Form 246 on epublishing, I found that this form became obsolete 15 Mar 2010.

A6. We have developed a new student course critique form that has substantially the same information as the now-obsolete AMC Form 246. It can still be found in Appendix 3 of the QASP.