Attachment_4_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan_22_July_2013.pdf

N00019-12-R-0007

Attachment 4

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

Naval Strike And Air Warfare Center (NSAWC) Aircraft Maintenance

22 July 2013

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document that defines the metrics used to assess Contractor performance and to ensure that the Government receives a reasonable quality of service with reference to contractual requirements to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are utilized in the administration of the performance based Contractor Support Services contract.

The contract supports daily aircraft operations at Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC), Fallon, NV. The Contractor shall provide three levels of aircraft maintenance (organizational, selected intermediate, and limited depot), logistics management, program management, technical management, financial management, and functional check flight test support for the Navy F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F, E/A-18G, MH-60S, F-16A/B, and E-2C aircraft based at NSAWC.

The contract contains O&MN Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for organizational and intermediate maintenance and depot aircraft painting and cost-reimbursable (non-fee bearing) CLINs for travel and material. The contract will be for a period of five years, including all option periods. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under FAR Part 46, Inspection of Services clauses, which provide for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the contract.

3. Scope

The contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the contract. The QASP is put in place to provide Government oversight of the contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective, and are delivering quality products and services as specified by the contract.

4. Government Resources

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

Contracting Officer – The person duly appointed with the authority to enter into (Procuring Contracting

Officer (PCO)) or administer (Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)) contracts and make related determination and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO for this contract is in the NAVAIR

Code 2.3.5 Division. Contracting Officers are designated via a written warrant, which sets forth limitations of authority.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The individual designated by the PCO to act as the technical representative to assist in administering the contract at NSAWC Fallon, NV. The COR’s limitation of authority is contained in the written letter of appointment.

5. Responsibilities

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

Contracting Officer – The Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer assures the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the contract/orders. The Contracting Officer is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officer Representative (COR) - The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract/orders. 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 contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

6. Method of Quality Assurance Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) – The marketplace for contractor support services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a stake in the Government-generated CPARS. For this procurement, the Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management of key personnel, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout the Department of Defense (DoD), the Government assessment of this contract will be documented in CPARS.

b. QASP - The surveillance methods listed in enclosures (1) , (2) and (3) will be used by the

COR to perform quality assurance functions under this contract.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) set forth the performance assessment methods, performance standards, surveillance methods, incentives, and definitions for evaluation areas and ratings. If the Government identifies a discrepancy, the Contractor will be issued a Corrective Action Request (CAR), Enclosure (6).

The Contractor shall respond by the suspense date provided on the CAR.

8. Documentation

The COR will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and actions related to the Government’s performance of the quality assurance function, including the original Quality Assurance Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract.

9. Enclosure

Enclosure (1) - NSAWC Quarterly Performance Assessment

Enclosure (2) - NSAWC Maintenance Performance Standards

Enclosure (3) – Data Performance Standards

Enclosure (4) - Incentives

Enclosure (5) – Definitions For IPAR/CPAR Evaluation Areas/Ratings

Enclosure (6) - Corrective Action Request

Naval Strike And Air Warfare Center (NSAWC) Aircraft Maintenance

Quarterly Performance Assessment

1. General

This Quarterly Performance Assessment (QPA) encompasses the essential attributes necessary for the measurement of contractor performance in a uniform manner throughout the life of the contract. This assessment applies to all E-2, F-16, F/A-18, E/A-18, and H-60 T/M/S aircraft attached to NSAWC. The results of the assessments will become a part of the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR).

The assessments conducted will be by T/M/S aircraft, with contractor achieving a minimum Total

Performance Rate (TPR) of 70% for each T/M/S aircraft.

The TPR is a composite score comprised of several performance assessment standards. This QPA shall include all aircraft assigned to NSAWC during this contract effort on which the Government has completed the functional check flight and aircraft acceptance inspection.

2. Assessment Standards

Ready for Flight (RFF): RFF percentage achieved during the quarter will be forty percent (40%) of the performance assessment. RFF aircraft are the number of aircraft that were available for assignment to the

Operations Department in a mission capable status as of 0700 hours each day for utilization to accomplish flight requirements as established by the published flight schedule, regardless of location.

(1) The daily RFF rate shall be used to calculate the quarterly RFF rate at the end of each assessment period for each T/M/S aircraft.

(2) A RFF total point value for each T/M/S aircraft will be assigned based on the average of the daily RFF percentages achieved during the reporting period and in accordance with the

Quarterly Performance Assessment Table 1. The point value shall be used to compute the TPR.

The RFF point value comprises 40% of the TPR.

Quarterly Performance Assessment Table 1

Ready for Flight (RFF)

Average RFF Rate This Period Point Value

>70% 100

60 to 69.9% 95

50 to 59.9% 90

40 to 49.9% 85

30 to 39.9% 80

20 to 29.9% 75

10 to 19.9% 70

0 to 9.9% 65

Aircraft Material Condition: The Aircraft Material Condition assessment will make up sixty percent (60%) of the TPR score. The material condition assessment of the aircraft will combine two separate point values:

(1) Aircraft Discrepancy Book (ADB) Upgripe Count: The Government shall randomly select one RFF aircraft per T/M/S each day and will count the number of documented “up” discrepancies in the ADB. Corrosion discrepancies, discrepancies in awaiting parts status, special inspections, and TDs will not be included in this count. Upgripe Count daily averages will be determined by dividing the total number of “up” discrepancies by the total number of reportable days in the assessment period. An ADB Upgripe Count, point value for each T/M/S aircraft will be in accordance with the Performance Assessment Criteria Table 2. The ADB Upgripe Count comprises

40% of the TPR.

Quarterly Performance Assessment Table 2

ADB Upgripe Count

Number Of Documented And

Undocumented Discrepancies

Point Value

>15 0

15 5

14 10

13 20

12 30

11 40

10 50

9 60

8 70

7 80

6 90

1-5 100

(2) Aircraft Material Condition Inspections (MCIs): The Government will evaluate the aircraft to assess the overall material condition of assigned aircraft to determine the effectiveness of the corrosion control program and measure compliance with applicable MRCs and paint schemes.

When notified by the Government of its intent to conduct an MCI, the contractor shall ensure all applicable aircraft access panels remain open until the Government has completed the MCI.

Aircraft to be inspected shall have access panels opened to the same degree as required for aircraft major corrosion control inspections; 42-day for F-16, 84-day for F/A-18, 84-day E/A-18G, 56-day for H-60 and 56/112 day for E-2. The Government will perform additional MCIs as deemed necessary and the contractor shall open aircraft access panels as applicable. An Aircraft Material

Condition Inspection point value will be in accordance with Performance Assessment Criteria Table

3. The Government will assign an average score in the event more than one MCI occurs per T/M/S aircraft in a grading period. Aircraft MCI comprise 20% of the TPR.

a. The Government will check the ADB for any documented corrosion discrepancies. If any documented corrosion discrepancy remains on the aircraft over 28 days, the score of this aircraft shall be zero. Corrosion discrepancies that require depot level repair and discrepancies in an awaiting parts status will not be included in the Assessment. A copy of the P&E request shall accompany the corrosion discrepancy.

b. The Government will review all outstanding discrepancies in the ADB. Once all corrosion discrepancies have been verified in the ADB the physical inspection of the aircraft will be conducted. All discrepancies identified during the physical inspection will be annotated as minor, major, or critical as defined in paragraphs i through iii of this Addendum. In addition, corrosion discrepancies discovered will be annotated as light, moderate, or severe, as per the criteria promulgated below in paragraph iv through vi of this Addendum. Any critical discrepancy or severe corrosion discrepancy will result in zero points awarded on the MCI for that T/M/S aircraft. The final determination of whether zero points are awarded on an MCI is at the discretion of the COR.

i. Defect, Minor: A defect that does not materially reduce the usability of the unit or part for its intended purpose or is a departure from standards but which has no significant bearing on the effective use or operation of the unit or part, i.e. Full

Mission Capable status. Deferral of corrective actions until the next examination is not likely to impose an unequal economic penalty.

ii. Defect, Major: A defect, other than critical, that could result in failure or materially reduces the usability of the unit for its intended purpose i.e. Partial Mission

Capable status. Aircraft is safely flyable but requires major repairs within a specified period.

iii. Defect, Critical: A defect that constitutes a hazardous or unsafe condition, or as determined by experience and judgment could conceivably become so, thus making the aircraft unsafe for flight or endangering operating personnel, i.e. Not Mission

Capable status. The condition is such that a corrective action is required prior to release of the aircraft for flight.

iv. Light Corrosion: At this degree, the protective coating is scarred or etched and the condition of the metal is characterized by discoloration and pitting to a depth of approximately one mil (0.001 inch) maximum. This type of damage can normally be removed by light hand sanding.

v. Moderate Corrosion: This looks like light corrosion except that there may be some blisters or evidence of scaling and flaking of the coating or paint system, and the pitting depths may be as deep as 10 mils (0.010 inch). Extensive hand sanding or light mechanical sanding normally removes this type of damage.

vi. Severe Corrosion: Its general appearance may be similar to moderate corrosion with severe intergranular corrosion, blistering exfoliation, scaling, or flaking. The pitting depths are deeper than 10 mils (0.010 inch). This damage must be removed by extensive mechanical sanding or grinding.

c. The E-2 aircraft MCI will be divided into seven zones. Each zone will be inspected and graded using the same assessment criteria as all other T/M/S aircraft. Once all zonal inspections are complete, the average of the scores will be the E-2 aircraft MCI score.

d. The following two examples will help explain how MCI point values in Table 3 are determined for any of NSAWC’s T/M/S aircraft:

Example 1. The Government performed an MCI on one of NSAWC’s E/A-18G Growler aircraft during a scheduled visit. The inspection revealed six minor discrepancies and two major discrepancies. The Government inspectors assigned an Aircraft Material Condition

Inspection point value of 50.

This is how the Government used Table 3 to make their determination.

In Table 3, The 6 minor discrepancies correlates to a 90 (Point Value)

The 2 major discrepancies correlates to a 50 (Point Value)

The total discrepancies equals 8 and correlates to a 70 (Point Value) the aircraft MCI point value will be 50; the assigned point value cannot be greater than a point value that correlates to the number of major discrepancies.

Example 2. The Government performed an MCI on one of NSAWC’s F-16B Falcon aircraft during an unscheduled visit. The inspection revealed nine minor discrepancies and just one major discrepancy. The Government inspectors assigned an Aircraft Material

Condition Inspection point value of 60.

This is how the Government used Table 3 to make their determination.

In Table 3, The 9 minor discrepancies correlates to a 60 (Point Value)

The 1 major discrepancy correlates to a 70 (Point Value)

The total discrepancies equals 10 and correlates to a 50 (Point Value) the aircraft MCI point value will be 60; the assigned point value correlates to the total number of discrepancies.

e. In the event that more than one MCI per T/M/S aircraft takes place in one grading period, the Government will assign an average point value.

Quarterly Performance Assessment Table 3

Aircraft Material Condition Inspection (MCI)

Total Number Of Undocumented

Major And Minor Discrepancies

Number Of Undocumented Major

Discrepancies

Point Value

>15 4 0

15 5

14 10

13 20

12 3 30

11 40

10 2 50

9 60

8 1 70

7 80

6 90

1-5 0 100

CPAR Evaluation Procedures

The Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) will designate the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to be responsible for establishing a monitoring process that will ensure the collection and recording of definitive quantitative data. The COR will receive, code, validate, assess, monitor, report, compile, and present the performance information to the Program Manager within ten working days after the end of each assessment period.

At the end of each assessment period, the Government will use the RFF, ADB Upgripe Count, and MCI point values generated by Quarterly Performance Assessment Tables to produce a TPR percentage for each

T/M/S aircraft. When the MCI Quarterly Performance Assessment Table is not required during the reporting period, insert “100” as the T/M/S MCI point value. The TPR will be calculated with the following example formula:

E-2 TPR = [(E-2 RFF X 0.4) + (E-2 ADB Upgripe Count X 0.4) + (E-2 MCI X 0.2)]

TPR

Quarterly

Performance Rating

<60% Unsatisfactory

60 to 69.9% Marginal

70 to 79.9% Satisfactory

80 to 89.9% Very Good

90 to 100% Exceptional

C. A Composite Performance Percentage (CPP) combines all T/M/S TPR percentages as established above, using the following example formula:

CPP = (E-2 TPR) + (F-16 TPR) + (F-18 TPR) + (E/A-18G) + (H-60 TPR)

D. The CPP will result in the following Quality of Product or Service ratings:

CPP

Quarterly

Performance Rating

<60% Unsatisfactory

60 to 69.9% Marginal

70 to 79.9% Satisfactory

80 to 89.9% Very Good

90 to 100% Exceptional

E. The four Quarterly CPPs will be averaged to establish a Quality of Product or Service rating for the year that will be used for the CPAR submission. The same adjectival ratings in the table above will apply to the yearly CPP.

The Government will monitor the Contractor’s performance as identified in the following table.

NSAWC Maintenance Performance Standards

Description

Performance Standard

And Acceptable Quality Level

Surveillance

Method/Measure

Incentives

Provide aircraft for scheduled launch window.

(Launch Window)

Requirements and objectives met on time with no more than five-minute delay, 95% of the time.

Surveillance by COR See enclosure (3)

Provide aircraft capable of performing specific events.

( Ready for Flight)

Requirements and objectives met on time, 70% of the time.

Surveillance by COR See enclosure (3)

Provide aircraft that complete scheduled sorties.

(Sortie Completion Rate)

Requirements and objectives met on time, 95% of the time.

Surveillance by COR See enclosure (3)

Provide aircraft that are free of material defect and corrosion. (Aircraft Material

Condition Inspection)

Requirements and objectives met on time, 70% of the time.

Surveillance by COR See enclosure (3)

Data Performance Standards

Description

Standard

Performance Standard

And Acceptable Quality Level

Surveillance

Method/Measure

Contract Data

Requirements List

(CDRL)

Submission is in accordance with the Data

Item Description (DID) cited in the CDRL

95% of content acceptable on first submission to Government;

100% acceptable on final submission to Government.

Surveillance by

COR

See enclosure (3)

Monthly

Financial

Expenditure

Report

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL

95% of content acceptable on first submission to Government;

100% acceptable on final submission to Government.

Surveillance by

COR

See enclosure (3)

Aircraft Daily

Status Report

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the CDRL

95% of content acceptable on first submission to Government;

100% acceptable on final submission to Government.

Surveillance by

COR

See enclosure (3)

Engine Daily

Status Report

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the CDRL

95% of content acceptable on first submission to Government;

100% acceptable on final submission to Government.

Surveillance by

COR

See enclosure (3)

Assessment

Period

Acceptable Performance Definition

How Measured

Year 1 All measurement areas rated

“Satisfactory” or above. See enclosure (4).

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Contractor receives a negative

Year 2 All measurement areas rated

“Satisfactory” or above. See enclosure (4).

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive

Year 3 All measurement areas rated enclosure (4).

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive

Year 4 All measurement areas rated enclosure (4).

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive

Year 5 All measurement areas rated enclosure (4).

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive

DEFINITIONS FOR IPAR/CPAR EVALUATION AREAS/RATINGS

All tasks (which include sub-task and specific emphasis) will be assessed focusing on the following areas:

A. Quality of Product or Service – Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards). Include, as applicable, a discussion of the accuracy of reports/data; the extent to which the products/services provided meet the specifications of the contract; the extent to which the contractor’s work measures up to commonly accepted technical or professional standards; and the degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems that arise during performance.

B. Schedule – Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules and administrative requirements. This assessment of the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. This element applies to contract closeout activities as well as contract performance.

C. Cost Control – Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. Include, as applicable, a discussion of the contractor’s ability to perform within the total estimated cost (what is the relationship of the negotiated costs and budgeted costs to actuals); innovative approaches implemented by the contractor that resulted in cost savings; the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of invoices; and the adequacy of the contractor’s budgetary internal controls.

D. Business Relations – Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective actions, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, and customer satisfaction. Include, as applicable, a discussion of customer orientation displayed by the contractor; degree of satisfaction with amount of interaction between the contractor and the government; adequacy of the contractor’s accounting, billing, and estimating systems and the contractor’s management of Government

Furnished Property (GFP) if GFP has been provided to the contractor under the contract; timeliness of awards to subcontractors and management of subcontractors, including subcontractor costs; efforts taken to ensure early identification of subcontract problems and the timely application of corporate resources to preclude subcontract problems from impacting overall prime contractor performance; and the amount of prime contractor effort devoted to managing subcontracts and whether the subcontractors were an integral part of the contractor’s team.

E. Management of Key Personnel – Assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel. Include, as appropriate, a discussion of how well the contractor matched the qualifications of key positions, as described in the contract, with the personnel who filled the positions; whether the contractor supported key personnel so they were able to work effectively; corrective actions taken by the contractor in the event key personnel did not perform well; and extent to which replacements for key personnel met or exceeded the qualifications of the position as described in the contract.

F. Utilization of Small Business – Assess whether the contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for Small Business to participate in contract performance consistent with efficient performance of the contract. Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract relating to Small Business participation, including FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Businesses, FAR 52.219-9, Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), and DFARS 252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Assess any small business participation goals which are stated separately in the contract. Assess achievement on each individual goal stated within the contract or subcontracting plan, including good faith effort if the goal was not achieved.

G. Other Areas – Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the contract or that cannot be captured elsewhere.

The evaluation ratings (excluding Utilization of Small Business) for all areas are as follows:

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

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

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

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

Satisfactory - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task contain 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 task and sub-task being assessed reflect 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 task or sub-task contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s actions appear or were ineffective.

The evaluation ratings for Utilization of Small Business are as follows:

Exceptional – Exceeded all negotiated subcontracting goals or exceeded at least one goal and met all of the other negotiated subcontracting goals for the current period. Had exceptional success with initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB). Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business

Concerns. Exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Went above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan and other small business requirements of the contract. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Very Good – Met all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the traditional socio-economic categories

(SB, SDB, and WOSB) and met at least one if the other socio-economic goals (HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB) for the current period. Had significant success with initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small

Business Concerns. Met or exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small business in mission critical aspects of the program. Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan. Completed and submitted Individual

Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Satisfactory – Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories for the current period. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of

Small Business Concerns. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract.

Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract. Completed and submitted

Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Marginal – Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements. Deficient in complying with FAR

52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Required a corrective action plan.

Unsatisfactory - Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, DFARS 252.219-7003, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan.

CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUEST

1. DATE: 2. REFERENCE NUMBER:

3. TO: 4. FROM:

5. The following non-compliance requires corrective action:

6. In your reply, please include a description of:

( ) Action taken to correct specific non ( ) Identify measures to verify effectiveness compliance behavior of corrective action taken

( ) Root cause of the non-compliance ( ) Action taken to determine other processes affected by the same or similar root causes

( ) Action taken to correct & prevent ( ) Target dates for implementation of recurrence of root cause corrective actions

7a. Category non-compliance:

(reference) ( ) Verbal ( ) Written

7b. Classification:

( ) Critical ( ) Major ( ) Minor

8a. Non Conformance discussed with:

8b. Title:

9. This non-compliance may affect safety. (if yes, send copy to VFC 13 Safety Office)

YES/NO

10. This non-compliance may affect the

HAZ/MAT program. (if yes, send a copy to VFC

13 HAZMAT)

YES/NO

11. Request you reply within (5) working days. If response cannot be finalized within this time, please submit date your investigation will be completed.

CMMT SIGNATURE:_________________

12. Contractor response:

(Use this document as a cover sheet and attach your response)

13a. Type or print name of contractor rep:

13b. Signature: 13c. Date:

14. CMMT Verification and follow-up on contractor’s response:

15. Typed CMMT name:

15b. Signature: 15C. Date: