C21_QASP_FINAL_Review.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. Vision

2. Mission

3. Purpose

4. Authority

5. Roles and Responsibilities

6. Performance Requirements and Methods of Surveillance

7. Contract Management

8. Acceptance of Services

9. Appendices

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

1. Vision

The United States Air Force (USAF) Air Mobility Command (AMC)/A3T, in coordination with other major commands (MAJCOMs), approves mission qualification training for aircrews, continuation training and locally taught upgrade courses. The overall vision of the aircrew training program is to develop and maintain a high state of mission readiness for immediate and effective employment in exercises, peacekeeping operations, contingencies, and war.

2. Mission

In order to maintain a high state of mission readiness, AMC/A3T seeks to provide high quality training for Pilots. Specifically, this requirement shall ensure Pilots for the C-21A are provided classroom and aircraft simulator training which will encompass normal and emergency procedures for initial, refresher, instructor and Senior Officer courses.

3. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a government-developed document used to determine if the contractor’s performance meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The QASP establishes procedures on how this assessment/inspection process will be conducted. It provides the detailed process for a continuous oversight process:

What will be monitored How monitoring will take place Who will monitor How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

The contractor is responsible for implementing and delivering performance that meets contract standards using its Quality Control Plan (QCP). The QASP provides the structure for the government’s surveillance to ensure the contractor’s performance meets contract standards. It is the government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating contractor performance.

The QASP is not part of the contract nor is it intended to duplicate the contractor’s QCP. This QASP is a living document. Flexibility in the QASP is required to allow for an increase or decrease in the level of surveillance necessary based on contractor performance.

The government may provide a copy of the QASP to the contractor to facilitate open communication. In addition, the government recognizes utilization of the QASP includes consideration of unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances may occur outside the control of the contractor.

The QASP should ensure early identification and resolution of performance issues to minimize impact on mission performance.

4. Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under FAR 37.604, 46.4, and the clause at 52.212-4 (Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items), which provides for inspection, acceptance, and documentation of the service called for in the contract or order. This acceptance is to be executed by the contracting officer or a duly authorized representative.

5. Roles and Responsibilities

The following personnel comprise the Multi-Functional Team (MFT) and shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities:

Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides primary program oversight. While the PM may serve as a direct conduit to provide government guidance and feedback to the contractor on technical matters, they are not empowered to make any contractual commitments or any contract changes on the government’s behalf.

Assigned PM:

Organization or Agency:

Telephone:

Email:

Contracting Officer (CO) – The CO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The CO shall also ensure the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The CO shall also determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.

Assigned CO:

Organization or Agency:

Telephone:

Email:

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) - The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance file accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the CO. The COR is required to provide an annual Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) to the CO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the government’s behalf.

Assigned Primary COR:

Organization or Agency:

Telephone:

Email:

Assigned Alternate COR:

Organization or Agency:

Telephone:

Email:

Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC) The government QAPC is responsible for developing, managing, and implementing the Quality Assurance Program. The QAPC also provides refresher training as needed to the CORs.

Assigned QAPC:

Organization or Agency:

Telephone:

Email:

Contractor Representatives The following employees of the contractor serve as the contractor’s Program Manager and Task Manager for this contract. (Complete this section after the contract award)

Program Manager - <upon award, enter name> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

Task Manager - <upon award, enter name> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

Other Key Contract Personnel - <upon award, enter name or delete these lines if not applicable> Title: <enter title> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

6. Performance Requirements and Method of Surveillance

6.1. Contract Surveillance

The COR is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the contractor’s performance. The COR’s contribution is their professional, non-adversarial relationships with the CO, PM and the contractor, which enables positive, open and timely communications. The foundation of this relationship is built upon objective, fair, and consistent COR evaluations of contractor performance against contract requirements. The COR uses the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise the contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control/assurance actions to successfully meet the terms of the contract.

6.2. Surveillance Matrix

The Services Summary/Surveillance Matrix (Appendix 1) is the list of performance objectives and thresholds that must be performed by the contractor. The matrix states performance objectives, performance thresholds, metrics and method of surveillance the COR will use to inspect and validate performance elements.

Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.

Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance thresholds define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. The Government performs surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards.

Methods of Surveillance. Random sampling surveillance, Periodic Inspection and Student Course Critiques will be the standard contract performance review and analysis processes used in evaluating the contractor’s performance. The PWS provides the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist. Definition of surveillance methods:

Student Course Critiques. AMC Form 246, Student Course Critiques. Upon completion of training, the contractor shall provide each student with a copy of AMC Form 246, Student Course Critique. Each student shall complete the form and return it to the contractor. The form queries the students with regard to quality of training materials, instruction, facilities and overall satisfaction with the course.

Random Sampling Surveillance. When selecting samples, the number of selections should exceed the required sample size by at least 10 percent to allow for situations where a selected sample cannot be evaluated. For example, if 250 student course critiques of the contractor’s performance are submitted as samples, select 28 samples instead of 25 to review for the surveillance. The COR will make every attempt to evaluate the first 25 samples selected but, should surveillance of the 15th sample be impossible, then the COR must evaluate the 26th sample instead. In this example, the COR need only evaluate 25 samples.

If the COR does not evaluate the total number of required samples, the samples not evaluated are deemed to have been performed and are recorded as acceptable.

Periodic Inspection. Performance and/or items are inspected using the periodic surveillance (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.) as determined by the COR. The results of the periodic surveillance inspections may be used as the basis for actions (other than payment deductions) toward the contractor. In such cases the Inspection of Services clause 52.212-4 becomes the basis for the CO’s actions. The inspection schedules (if applicable) are submitted to the CO for review prior to the month being inspected.

6.3. Performance Rating Definitions

In the case of unsatisfactory performance, the remedies afforded to the government include: less than satisfactory ratings on CPARS, reducing or withholding payment, not exercising option periods, and terminating the contract. In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings shall be used:

Exceptional – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

Very Good – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

Satisfactory - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

7. Contract Management.

The contractor shall immediately notify the CO or COR of any work being performed if any, that the contractor considers over and above the requirements of the contract.

8. Acceptance of Services

In accordance with FAR 52.212-4 (Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items), Mandatory Procedures / MP 5301.602-2(d) and the surveillance matrix (Appendix 1) the COR shall prepare a monthly summary assessment report NLT the 10th business day of each month or with each invoice. The report shall identify both positive and negative performance. At a minimum, the report shall identify the number of assessments scheduled and conducted, the number of unacceptable/acceptable performances observed, number of valid complaints received from student course critiques, any significant contractor performance discrepancies, and a rating of the Contractor’s overall performance. The report shall be signed and dated by the COR and uploaded to the CORT Tool each month.

9. Appendices

Appendix 1 – Services Summary/Surveillance Matrix

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE

PWS

PARAGRAPH

PERFORMANCE

THRESHOLD

METHOD OF

SURVEILLANCE

METRIC

INCENTIVE

/ REMEDY

Meet all academic, and simulator requirements for required courses

(Initial, Refresher, Instructor, and Senior Officer training)

1.3.1.1- 1.3.1.1.5, and

1.3.2 –

1.3.2.4.8 and

1.3.3 – 1.3.3.2 and 1.3.4 –

1.3.4.4

100% of academic and simulator requirements are met

Random Samplings of

Student Course Critiques and

Random Inspections by the COR or a USAF C-21A Instructor

Pilot

Number of valid complaints received from student course critiques during a training session quarter

Update to

CPARS

Performance Ratings

Meet requirements & guidelines for student performance, administration and evaluation.

1.3.6 –

1.3.6.3.4 and

1.3.7 –1.3.7.7

No more than one discrepancy for student performance, administration and evaluation per calendar quarter.

Random Samplings of

Student Course Critiques and

Periodic Inspection of

Student Records

Number of valid complaints received from student course critiques during a training session quarter

Update to

CPARS

Performance Ratings

The COR will evaluate contractor on each Performance Objective on a monthly basis and provide a copy to the CO.

Appendix 2 – Student Course Critique

OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT/EXECUTIVEAIRLIFT

STUDENT COURSE CRITIQUE

COURSE NUMBER COURSE TITLE DATE

NAME OF STUDENT GRADE (Optional) ORGANIZATION

NAME(S) OF INSTRUCTOR(S) GRADE (As Req’d) REPLY REQUESTED

YES NO

1. Instructor professionalism?

UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT OUTSTANDING

COMMENTS:

2. Instructor knowledge?

UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT OUTSTANDING

3. Instructor’s explanations to student/trainee’s questions.

UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT OUTSTANDING

4. Were visual aids current and helpful?

UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT OUTSTANDING

5. Were study materials (workbooks/handouts) current and helpful?

UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT OUTSTANDING

6. Were course length and time for each unit of instruction adequate?

UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT OUTSTANDING

7. (If applicable) How well did the exam evaluate your mastery of the course material?

UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT OUTSTANDING

PLEASE RATE THE COURSE OVERALL

UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT OUTSTANDING

OTHER COMMENTS: (Please make any additional comments you feel will help to improve this course)

FOLLOW‐UP ACTION

DATE CONDUCTED BY:

OPR: AMC/A3TA‐OSA/EA, 1 May 2012 (REVERSE)