J-2 QASP.docx

Enclosure (3) Enclosure (3) Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan Supply Chain Analysis

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure the systematic Quality Assurance (QA) methods are used in the administration surveillance of tasking under the Contract. The intent is to ensure the Contractor performs In Accordance With (IAW) the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the Task Order (TO).

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) is leading a process improvement team to improve the spares dimension of aviation readiness. This team is systematically analyzing selected supply chain processes and metrics that are significantly degrading weapon system availability for key weapon systems. The team has also assessed the Air Force’s Customer-Oriented Leveling Technique (COLT) and Proactive Demand Leveling (PDL) technique and has implemented it across the Marine aviation enterprise.

NAVAIR requires contractor support in modeling weapon system spares support, developing alternative courses of action to resolve sparing issues for specific items, assessing the readiness impacts of proposed solutions, supporting implementation efforts for approved courses of action and conducting analysis on various supply chain metrics and their impact on the achievement of Mission Capable (MC) and Full Mission Capable (FMC) goals. In support of this process improvement team, the contractor will attend a series of meetings between NAVAIR and Naval Supply (NAVSUP) Systems Command and provide real-time technical and analytical support. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Aviation provides strategic and operational consumable material support to the weapon systems that are the focus of this process improvement team and thus will be an integral component of implementing the courses of action this study will generate.

NAVAIR requires contractor support to modify the Air Force’s COLT and PDL algorithms and business rules for the Marine aviation enterprise, develop automated data feeds as inputs to these tools, configure the models for Marine aviation operations, and operate production versions of COLT and PDL for Marine aviation.

This Contract will be Firm-Fixed Price. The Contract will have a one year base period of performance plus 4 additional option periods. A properly executed checklist will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this CSP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services, products, and documentation called for in the Contract executed by the Contracting Officer (KO) or a duly authorized representative.

3. Scope

To fully understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between Quality Control Plan (QCP) and the CSP. The Contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for the QCP, which defines the management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth in the TO.

The CSP provides Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective and are delivering the results specified in the TO.

4. Government Resources

The following definitions for Government resources are applicable to this plan:

KO: A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into a contract (Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)), or a person with the authority to administer contracts (Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)) and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO for this Contract is with the COMFRC Procurement Group (F2551). KOs are designated via a written warrant that sets forth limitations of authority.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR): An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative to assist in administering the Contract. The COR will be appointed in the resulting Contract. The limitations of authority are contained in the letter of appointment.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR) (if applicable): An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative, in the absence of the COR, to assist in administering the Contract. The ACOR will be appointed in the resulting Contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

5. Responsibilities

The following Government resources shall have responsibility for the implementation of this CSP:

KO: The KO (PCO or ACO) ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the Contract, and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO assures that the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the Contract. The KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

COR: The COR is responsible for technical administration of the Contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect the Contract price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action.

ACOR (if applicable): The ACOR assists the COR for technical administration of the Contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The ACOR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect the contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS): The market place for consulting services is very competitive. As such, the successful Offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this Contract. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of the period of performance. This evaluation will be one determinant in the award of future contracts or TOs. The Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of Small Business (SB), and other important areas for this procurement. Some of the monitoring methods to be used will be Government observation, review of reports, customer feedback, and review of Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs). As this information may affect future source selections throughout the Department of Defense (DoD) and the continuation of this tasking, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the within the policies of this CSP.

b. Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC): This document will be used by the COR/ACOR in the technical administration of this Contract. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of QA surveillance is the SAC.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1) and (2) set forth the performance standards and incentives for the Contractor, the COR/ACOR while Enclosure (3) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance and will be provided to the KO.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing quarterly reports to the KO, the COR will maintain a complete QA file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government’s performance of the QA function, including the originals of the QA Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the Contract. The COR shall forward these records to the KO at termination or completion of the Contract.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1): Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Data Quality Standards Enclosure (2): Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC) Enclosure (3): Annual Surveillance Summary

RFP #: N68520-23-R-0030

Source Selection Information 1 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY See FAR 3.104 and 2.101 Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE (1): CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL) DATA QUALITY STANDARDS

Method/Measure Incentives

Enclosure (1) Enclosure (1)

Source Selection Information 5 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE (2): SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST (SAC)

Monthly COR Surveillance:

The COR will perform a monthly assessment of quality, schedule, business relations, management and other areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3).

Quarterly Summary of Ratings:

Enclosure (2) Enclosure (2)

Source Selection Information 7 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

Source Selection Information 8 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE (3): ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE SUMMARY

The COR will perform an assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed below. This assessment will be completed annually covering the previous 12 months.

All CDRL tasks, including sub-tasks, will be assessed focusing on the following.

Quality of Product or Service: Assess the Contractor’s effort to transform operational needs and requirements into an integrated solution. Areas of focus may include the planning and management of program tasks, the quality of support provided throughout all phases of contract execution, the integration of program management specialties, management of interfaces, and the management of a totally integrated effort of all program management concerns to meet cost, performance, and schedule objectives. Assess how successfully the Contractor meets program quality.

Schedule: Assess the Contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule by assessing the Contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events (i.e., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of Contractor corrective actions.

Business Relations: Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the Contractor’s reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction.

Management: Assess the Contractor’s success with timely award and management of subcontracts. Discuss the extent to which the Contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the Contract; identifies and applies resources required to meet schedule requirements; assigns responsibility for tasks/actions required by the Contract; and communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the Contractor’s risk mitigation plans.

Other areas: Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the Contract or that cannot be captured elsewhere.

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

Exceptional Performance: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance: 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: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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: 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.