25_-_LOSC_QASP_8_15_16.pdf

30 SW Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA

The following members of the MFT have approved implementation of this Plan on behalf of the entire MFT:

Program Manager

Contracting Officer

LAUNCH OPERATIONS SUPPORT CONTRACT (LOSC)

Solicitation FA4610-15-R-0002

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN – LOSC (FA4610-15-R-0002)

REVISION HISTORY

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE AUTHOR DATE

Initial Release MFT TBD

30 RMS / RMQ

Vandenberg

AFB, CA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sections Page

1. Scope 4

2. Purpose 4

3. Goals 4

4. Responsibilities 4

5. Performance Assessment 6

6. Corrective and Preventative Action 7

7. Continual Improvement 8

8. Product Acceptance 8

9. Customer Feedback 8

10. Performance Feedback 8

11. Performance Records 9

Tables

A. Multi-Functional Team Member Responsibilities 4 B. Performance Assessment Methods 6 C. Corrective Action Report Levels 7 D. Services Summary Matrix 9

Appendices for all The MIS is used to record the

1. Acronyms 15

2. Definitions 15

1. SCOPE TOC

The Launch Operations Support Contract (LOSC) program objective is to provide mission support for the Launch and Test Range System (LTRS), buildings, infrastructure, and Real Property (RP) in support of Western Range operations. The goal is to ensure the high performance confidence levels required for Range support of equipment and facilities is maintained for a variety of ballistic missile, space, guided weapon, and aircraft test and evaluation missions in support of Air Force, Navy, Army, National Reconnaissance Office, Missile Defense Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Energy, Defense Advanced Research Projects, National Aeronautics & Space Administration, and a variety of commercial, allied nations, and governmental agencies.

2. PURPOSE

This document was developed pursuant to the requirements of the performance work statement (PWS) for LOSC. Guidance is derived from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 37, Service Contracting. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) sets forth the performance assurance methodology, practices, and resources which will be employed in evaluating LOSC performance.

This QASP defines the responsibilities of the multi-functional team (MFT) personnel, describes the performance assurance methods used in assessing contractor performance, and the assessment results determine product acceptance or non-acceptance. This plan shall be reviewed annually by members of the MFT, and modified as circumstances warrant throughout the life of the contract to ensure adequate oversight of contractor performance is maintained.

3. GOALS

In managing the LOSC acquisition, the MFT will strive to achieve improved customer service, contractor performance, and cost savings, while encouraging innovation and promoting performance-based services. This QASP was created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance.

4. RESPONSIBILITIES

Table A – LOSC MFT Member Responsibilities TOC Reference MP 5301.602-2(d) and CO delegation letter for additional responsibilities.

MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES

Contracting Officer

• Co-lead the MFT

• Ensure open communication is maintained between all parties

• Delegate authority for inspection and acceptance to COR

• Ensure contract specific training is schedule and provided

• Inform the contractor of the names, authority and limitations of COR

• Issue contract modifications as necessary

• Take appropriate action should unacceptable performance occur

• Review COR monthly reports for completeness/accomplishment

• Provide an assessment on COR performance to the COR supervisor, as requested

Program Manager

• Co-lead the MFT

• Provide management oversight of program cost, schedule and performance to ensure 30 SW/CC goals and objectives are met

• Ensure technical requirements and cost estimates meet FC/FD mission needs

• Ensure MFT developed documents satisfy mission requirements

• Serve as the designated assessing official for annual CPAR inputs

• Lead the development of the acquisition strategy

COR

Management

(COR

Supervisor)

• Ensure that trained and qualified CORs are assigned prior to contract award

• Evaluate COR performance

• Ensures COR will be afforded necessary resources (time, equipment, opportunity) to perform designated COR responsibilities

Functional Commanders and Director

• Identify requirement needs within their assigned functional area

• Review contractor performance documentation

• Review COR CPAR inputs

Contracting Officer Representative

• Evaluate and document contractor performance per the QASP

• Coordinate with FC/FD to develop Service Summary (SS) items

• Notify MFT of significant performance deficiencies

• Maintain assessment documentation in the 30 SW/PMD MIS

• Recommend changes to improve performance and reduce cost

• Submit monthly reports on contractor performance

• Submit semi-annual and annual CPAR inputs to the PMO

Quality Assurance Program Coordinator

• Review and provide feedback on PWS and QASP

• Assist in CO/QAPC Led training for COR

• Conduct QAPC training IAW AFFARS MP5301.602-2(d), MP5346.103

COR Program Manager

• Assist in developing QASP and Service Summary (SS) items

• Assist COR personnel in performing observations and documenting contractor performance in the MIS

• Provide contractor performance metrics to the PM, CO, and COR

Management, as requested.

Contractor

• Comply fully with the terms and conditions of the contract

• Participate as MFT member in the post-award management phase

• Maintain and implement a quality control plan

• Ensure nonconforming products or services are identified, documented, and corrected

5. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

The COR plans for and applies the performance assessment methods in Table B throughout the LOSC program’s period of performance. The COR shall assess contractor performance against the SS requirements in accordance with Table E using applicable SS checklists and inspection schedule. All assessment or surveillance activities will be recorded in the MIS.

CORs may utilize daily/weekly contractor schedule meetings to plan their surveillance activities.

Contractors are not necessarily notified prior to surveillance. The government maintains the right to assess all contract requirements to the extent practicable; but will make every attempt not to delay the contractor's workflow.

30 CONS/LGCM QA (GS 1910) will validate the contractor’s quality management system (QMS) for higher-level quality requirements through a series of QMS audits. Examples of higher-level quality standards are ISO 9001, 9002, or 9003; ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001-2000; ANSI/ASQC Q9001, Q9002, or Q9003; QS-9000;AS-9000; ANSI/ASQC E4; and ANSI/ASME NQA-1. Lead Auditors will input surveillance observations, findings, records and corrective actions into the MIS. Method type and frequency is adjusted based on demonstrated contractor performance or direction from the Contracting Officer.

30 CONS/LGCM QA will assist CORs when need to assess other areas of the PWS.

The government retains the right to inspect any item included in the PWS. The results of these inspections are documented. Should a discrepancy be observed, the PM and CO will be notified.

Table B – Performance Assessment Methods

Method Description

Inspection Conformity evaluation by observation and judgment accompanied as appropriate by measurement, testing or gauging.

Mandatory Government Inspection

A compulsory inspection of contractor products, processes, or services locally imposed or requested by the PM, CO, or customer.

Walk-down

A visual inspection of facility structures, systems and components to identify the as-found physical configuration and any discrepancies using currently approved documentation.

Witness To see, hear, or know by personal presence at a specific contractor activity.

Process Evaluation An assessment of contractor work activities, in addition to in-depth requirements analysis and specifications flow file://52xumu-fs-005v/PM/81%20-%20MIS/Management%20Information%20System(COR)new.mdb down review to ultimately ensure appropriate documentation and process controls are in place.

Product Audit An examination of process outcomes performed subsequent to contractor examination.

Management System Audit

A systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which audit criteria are fulfilled.

Document Review A review of information and its supporting medium.

Record Review A review of documents stating results achieved or providing evidence of activities performed.

6. CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTATIVE ACTION

The corrective action process provides for the documentation, communication, investigation, and resolution of nonconformities affecting contractor processes, systems and products.

CARs range from Level I to III as shown in Table D below.

When nonconformities or potential nonconformities are identified concurrently with contractor personnel, the COR should (in most cases) allow the contractor to utilize their internal corrective and preventative action process to document and resolve the nonconformity. When nonconformities are independently identified, the COR validates the nonconformity with the MFT and initiates a CAR in the MIS.

The COR performs follow-up for all MFT validated nonconformities to ensure the root cause of the nonconformity is determined and documented. The COR shall also validate the corrective action is appropriate, implemented, and documented.

Table C - Corrective Action Report Levels

CAR Level Nonconformity

I

Non-conformance that is usually administrative in nature, a minor isolated occurrence that usually can be corrected on the spot and where no further corrective action response is necessary. Issuing and closing authority is the COR. Level 1 CAR’s are documented in the MIS.

II

Non-conformance that may be considered for one or more of the following:

could affect quality program health, cost, schedule, performance; documents system or process problems or trends identified through repeat of a Level I CAR; inadequate contractor corrective action taken in response to a Level I CAR. A written response is required from the contractor addressing root cause and corrective/preventive action. Issuing and closing authority is the COR in concurrence with the MFT.

III

Non-conformance that may be considered for one or more of the following:

could result in significant degradation of the quality system; lack of confidence in the final product/service; potential or realized damage to flight hardware and/or range infrastructure compromise personnel safety; inadequate contractor corrective action taken in response to a Level II CAR; or multiple instances of the same type of nonconformance which brings the overall acceptability of the contractor’s quality system into question. A written response is required from the contractor addressing root cause and corrective/preventive action. Issuing and closing authority is the COR in concurrence with the MFT.

7. CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT

Continual Improvement is an on-going effort to refine and enhance contractor processes, systems, and products. When potential improvements are identified, the COR coordinates the improvement with the MFT and initiates a continual improvement opportunity (CIO) in the MIS.

CIOs are provided to the process owner for adoption consideration. CIO adoption is solely at the discretion of the contractor and shall not be considered direction by the government. The COR performs follow-up for all CIOs to determine adoption status, briefs the status of CIOs to the MFT, and closes the CIO in the MIS.

8. PRODUCT ACCEPTANCE

The program manager will certify receipt of acceptable products at intervals determined by the contract using a supplier submitted Form DD 250, Material Inspection and Receiving Report. In processing Forms DD 250, COR perform all actions necessary to verify products were received in the proper condition and quantity in accordance with contractual terms and conditions.

9. CUSTOMER FEEDBACK

The Customer Feedback (CF) process provides a method to document and communicate customer feedback, including perceived nonconformities with contractor provided services. The COR will follow-up on all CF received. Nonconformities are resolved using the normal CAR process. All customer feedbacks are entered in the MIS. The CF process is described below:

Positive CF should be validated by the COR to ensure the feedback received is not simply a normal contract requirement. For negative CF, the COR must first validate the feedback against the PWS requirements. If the negative CF is discovered to be invalid, the COR will inform the customer of the reason(s) why it is not valid. For a validated negative CF, the COR will notify the contractor’s designated representative to allow opportunity for investigation. If warranted, initiate a draft CF form in the MIS and provide the CF form to the MFT for further discussion and validation. When the MFT determines nonconformity exists, initiate a CAR in the MIS. The COR should provide feedback to the customer on the status of validated negative CFs. When the MFT determines there is no nonconformity, meet with the customer and MFT to decide if a contract modification is needed.

10. PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK

Within 10 business days following the end of each month, COR's shall provide a monthly report of surveillance activities per the template provided. The report shall go to the 30 SW/PMD COR file://52xumu-fs-005v/PM/81%20-%20MIS/Management%20Information%20System(COR)new.mdb

Program Manager for consolidation into the CORT Tool. Electronic copies will be provided to the MFT.

The COR will support the Management and Oversight of Acquisition of Services Process (MOASP) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) reporting process.

11. PERFORMANCE RECORDS

The COR will maintain a COR file of documents and records via the CORT Tool in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Procedures, Guidance, and Information (DFARS PGI), current edition, subpart 201.602-2,, and dispose of records in accordance with Air Force Records Disposition Schedule (RDS).

Table D – LOSC Services Summary Matrix

The LOSC Services Summary Matrix is comprised of 9 Items.

ITEM A

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE THRESHOLD AND

RATING CRITERIA

Services Summary Item A

Assessment Frequency Monthly

Assessment Method See Table C

PWS Clauses 4.0

Functional Area 30 CES/CC

Performance Objective Maintenance & Repair

Provide maintenance and repair for all assigned Property and Equipment (P&E) to ensure reliable operability.

Performance Threshold Critical items in demarcations of responsibility: Zero unavailable systems affecting launch and/or range missions at the time of launch or need. Zero mission date slips due to unavailability of a facility, system or capability that is maintained by the Contractor.

Non-Critical items on under demarcations of responsibility: At no point in time are less than 95% of non-critical items that are inspected available.

Rating Criteria Did not meet: One critical system unavailable for launch/range mission, or less than 95% of non-critical items surveyed available at any time.

E All critical items are available for launch and 98-100% of non-critical systems available for launch.

S All critical items are available for launch and 96-96.9% of all non-critical systems available for launch.

U One or more critical item is not available at time of launch or need and/or < 95% of all non-critical systems are available at any time.

https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-af61a/afrims/afrims/

ITEM B

Services Summary Item B

Assessment Frequency Quarterly

PWS Clause 6.10.1 and 6.13.3

Response Times: Provide timely response to and completion of prioritized work requirements to return P&E to within specifications.

P1: Responded within two hours; temporary solution with work around or full repair within 24hrs P3A: Responded and repaired within two days P3B-P3C: Responded and repaired within 30 days Service Desk: Provide customer status update within 1 hour for P1 and P3A work orders and within 4 hours for P3B-P4B work orders

Rating Criteria

Priority Rating Criteria

P1 100% = Excellent 99-98% = Satisfactory <97% = Unsatisfactory

P3A 100-98% = Excellent 97.9-95% = Satisfactory <95% = Unsatisfactory

P3B-P3C 100-96% = Excellent 95.9-90% = Satisfactory <90% = Unsatisfactory

Service Desk

100-95% = Excellent 94.9-85% = Satisfactory <85% = Unsatisfactory

No more than two customer complaints validated by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR)

ITEM C

Services Summary Item C

PWS Clauses 5.1

Complete Funded Task Assignments and Work Requests: Perform repairs, other services, and minor facility alterations according to written requirements within cost and mutually-agreed timeframes.

(1) Deliver quality performance; (2) adhere to TA schedule, milestone, and delivery requirements, (3) TA budget thresholds are not exceeded: provide efficient and effective control of labor resources, and verify DD250 upon completion of work. (4) Submit a completed DD1354 as required by TA.

Zero mission date slips due to late completion of task assignments or work requests.

At least 90% of all task assignments are completed on-time and within budget.

Completes the other 10% within 30 days of scheduled completion date.

Rating Criteria

To achieve each rating shown below, the contractor must succeed in both columns:

Mission Slips TAs On-Time and w/in Budget

Excellent 0 >97% Satisfactory 0 90-97% Unsatisfactory 1 <90%

ITEM D

Services Summary Item D

PWS Clause 4.1

Perform maintenance activities as detailed in the RCM Plan: Perform maintenance tasks on P&E at the appropriate interval as documented in the RCM plan.

Completes 90% of the RCM scheduled maintenance on time.

Excellent >97% Satisfactory 90-97% Unsatisfactory <90%

ITEM E

Services Summary Item E

PWS Clause 4.18

Perform P&E inspections and testing necessary to maintain all active P&E under the Contractors responsibility. Advises Government in advance of critical dates for P&E requiring tests.

Zero mission date slips due to failures to perform P&E inspections and testing when funded.

At least 90% P&E inspections and testing are completed on-time, when funded. Completes the other 10% within 30 days of scheduled completion date, when funded. For unfunded inspections and tests, no dates shall be exceeded w/out notifying Government 90 days in advance.

Rating Criteria To achieve the ratings below, the contractor must succeed in both columns.

Mission Slips On-Time P&E Excellent 0 >97% Satisfactory 0 90-97% Unsatisfactory 1 <90%

ITEM F

Services Summary Item F

PWS Clause 4.19

Perform P&E certification necessary to maintain all certification under the Contractors demarcations of responsibility, excluding certifications that are unfunded.

Advises Government in advance of critical dates for certifications.

Zero mission date slips due to failures to perform P&E certifications.

At least 90% P&E certifications are completed on-time, when funded. Completes the other 10% within 30 days of scheduled completion date, when funded. For unfunded certifications and tests, no dates shall be exceeded w/out notifying Government 90 days in advance.

Mission Slips On-Time P&E

E 0 >98%

S 0 92-97%

U 1 <92%

ITEM G

Services Summary Item G

PWS Clause 3.2

Launch Operations Support

Field crews to support launch and range operations during the launch countdown, according to the program manager’s manning requirements. Respond to trouble calls and take necessary actions to correct problems affecting the mission.

Zero instances of mission date slips due to validated failure of Contractor to respond or to take necessary corrective action during launch countdown.

E 0 instances of validated failure that results in a mission date slip.

U 1 or more instances of validated failure that results in a mission date slip.

ITEM H

Services Summary Item H

PWS Clause 4.2.8

Corrosion Control: Inspect all P&E and prepare a corrosion control plan derived from quarterly inspections and customer requirements. The corrosion control plan shall include enough detail to identify location of corrosion, quantity and severity of corrosion, and estimated labor hours for corrosion control.

Fewer than 5 pieces of P&E are missing from the CDRL 1. No more than 3 pieces of P&E have corrosion more severe than what’s documented in the CDRL A001.

Missing P&E Severity

Discrepancies

E 0 1

S 1-5 2-5

U >5 >5

ITEM I

Services Summary Item I

PWS Clause 6.8.2

Data Management System Document all work scheduled, work completed, and work costs in CCMS and IWIMS. Input data into IWIMS as necessary to keep the Civil Engineer Operations Chief and Program Manager informed of all maintenance and repair actions.

Within the Option year period, no more than fifteen or 15% (whichever is greater) of sampled IWIMS or CCMS records are found to be inaccurate or missing.

*Surveillance will be through random selection within the WO population.

E 5 or < 5% of sampled records are found to be inaccurate or missing.

S 9-12 or < 12% of sampled records are found to be inaccurate or missing

U >15 or < 15% of sampled records are found to be inaccurate or missing.

Appendix 1 – Acronyms

CAR Corrective Action Report CC Commander CDRL Contract Data Requirements List CIO Continuous Improvement Opportunity COR Contracting Officer Representative FC Requiring Activity/COR Management FD Functional Director ISO International Organization for Standardization MFT Multi-Functional Team MIS Management Information System OI Operating Instruction TOC Table of Contents PWS Performance Work Statement SS Services Summary

Appendix 2 – Definitions

Acceptance: government activity constituting acknowledgement that contractor products or service conform to applicable contract quality and quantity requirements.

Continual Improvement Opportunity: The form used to document and communicate potential improvements.

Contracting Officer: An individual with authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate and make related determinations and findings for the government. The contracting officer has overall responsibility for all aspects of the contract administration.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) An individual designated and authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer to perform specific technical and administrative functions.

Additionally, CORs serve as on-site technical managers assessing contractor performance against contract performance standards in accordance with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.

COR Program Manager: An individual who coordinates and manages the government COR Program. Assist COR personnel with functional area surveillance as needed. Periodically audits each functional area’s surveillance records to ensure required service summary items and non-service summary items are performed and documented in accordance with the QASP. Prepares and consolidates surveillance reports from functional CORs into a single report for distribution and PCO approval in CORT tool.

Corrective Action: action taken to fix and eliminate the cause of nonconformity.

Corrective Action Report: the forms used to document and communicate nonconformities.

Contracting Officer’s Representative Tracking (CORT) Tool: is a web management capability for the appointment of CORs. This Tool allows a perspective COR, COR Supervisor and Contracting Officer to electronically process nomination of CORs for one or multiple contracts. It provides built in workflows for the nomination process to include email alerts/status reminders for monthly status report due-ins and delinquencies. The CORT Tool provides contracting personnel and requiring activities the means to track and manage COR assignment across multiple contracts across DoD.

Functional Commander/Director: the person responsible for a functional area at the Squadron level.

Government Performance Management: the various functions by which the government determines whether a contractor has fulfilled contractual obligations pertaining to quality and quantity. It is related to and precedes the act of acceptance.

Management Information System: database application used to record the results of government performance assessments of contractor’s requirements and to support user data queries.

Metric: a measurement made over time and tied to a goal, which communicates vital information about the quality of a process and drives appropriate action.

Mission Assurance: Mission Assurance is both a process and a culture that must be adhered to by all individuals involved with 30 SW Launch Operations. As a process, mission assurance is an iterative, continuous, technical, and management activity employed over the entire launch process to achieve confidence in mission success. Mission Assurance includes a disciplined application of systems engineering, risk management, quality assurance, and program management principles. Mission Assurance is performed by a partnership of both contractor and government, beginning at concept design and continuing through launch operations and post-flight analysis.

Senior Leadership: Senior leaders are responsible for developing, implementing and executing service acquisitions. This responsibility includes the RAD, acquisition strategy, source selection, and performance/contract management of the service throughout the life of the acquisition. (See AFI 63-138 par. 6.3.1 for more details)

Multi-Functional Team: The MFT is a customer-focused team instituted under the authority of senior leadership and responsible for assessing contractor performance and managing the requirement over the life of the contract. Membership may include as few members as the contracting officer, program manager, quality assurance/COR, and functional/technical representative(s). Upon contract award, the contractor(s) is included in the MFT. (See AFI 63- 138 par. 6.3 for more details)

Nonconformity: non-fulfillment of a requirement.

Performance Objective: the outcome associated with successful contract performance in a specific area. This is a critical success factor in achieving the government organization’s mission, vision and strategy which, if not achieved, would likely result in a significant decrease in customer satisfaction or risk mission failure.

Performance Threshold: the minimum performance level of a performance objective required by the government.

Performance Work Statement: a formal, contractual expression of the requirements to be met by the contractor and the standards used to determine compliance.

Product: the result of activities or processes including services, software, hardware and processed materials.

Program Manager: designated individual with responsibility for and authority to accomplish program objectives for development, production, and sustainment of products, goods or services to meet user‘s operational needs, and is ultimately accountable for credible cost, schedule, performance, and materiel readiness to the 30 SW/CC. (See 30 SWI for more information)

Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC): An individual responsible for training CORs and COR management (e.g., COR Supervisor, Functional Commanders/Directors (FC/FD)) on the contracting requirements associated with the quality assurance program and any MAJCOM/DRU/HQ AFICA/AFRCO /SMC procedures prior to contract award and thought the life of the contract. Additionally, maintains the organization’s inputs into the DoD Contracting Officer Representative Tracking (CORT) Tool and may be designated as Department Administrators within the CORT Tool.

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP): The document government personnel use to assess contractor performance (see FAR 46.401, DFARS 246.401, DFARS 237.172). The QASP describes measurable performance standards and methods used by the government to provide surveillance and oversight of the contractor’s quality controls efforts to ensure timely and effective delivery results as specified in the performance work statement (PWS).

Services Summary: a summary of: the performance objectives and performance thresholds required by the government in contractor performance.

Services Summary Checklist and Schedule: the form used to plan government contract performance assurance activity related to the assessment of Services Summary performance.

1.

1.