Att_3_-_QASP.pdf

PID N00019-14-R-1029

Contract N00019-16-D-XXXX Attachment (3)

20 February 2015

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

UC-35C/D Aircraft Maintenance

PMA-207 is contracting for performance-based operational site support, aircraft depot maintenance, engine depot maintenance, modifications, and strategies that optimize total system availability while minimizing cost and logistics footprint. Sustainment strategies include the best use of public and private sector capabilities through

Government and industry partnering initiatives. The Contractor Logistic Services (CLS) contract includes all facilities, labor, services, equipment, tools, parts, materials, and consumables not explicitly stated as Government furnished to perform the work requirements for operational site support and aircraft and engine depot maintenance.

The PMA-207 Executive Lift Integrated Program Team (IPT) will be responsible for administrating this Quality

Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) that documents the process for ensuring that the Contractor performs in accordance with the performance standards and acceptable quality levels; ensures that the Government receives quality services; and ensures that the Government only pays for services that meet the acceptable levels stated in the plan.

Attachment (3)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction…..……………………………………….…………………………… 3

2. Purpose………………………………………………………………………...…… 3

3. Roles And Responsibilities…………………………………………………………. 3

3.1. Program/Project Manager……………………………………………………….. 3

3.2. Procuring Contracting Officer and Administrative Contracting Officer… …….. 3

3.3. Contracting Officer’s Representative…………………………………………… 4

3.4. Technical Point of Contact……………………………………………………… 4

4. Performance Surveillance Strategy…..…………………………………………… 4

4.1. Goal of the QASP………………………………………………………………. 4

4.2. Performance-Based Approach………………………………………………….. 5

4.3. Results Focused………………………………………………………………… 5

4.4. Contractor’s Responsibility…………………………………………………….. 5

4.5. Government Representative…………………………………………………….. 5

4.6. Methods of Surveillance………………………………………………………… 5

4.7. Consequences of Performance………………………………………………….. 5

4.8. Performance Standards…………………………………………………………… 6

4.9. Customer Satisfaction……………………………………………………………. 6

5. Documentation of Results ………………………………………………………… 6

5.1. Performance Assessment Report……………………………………………….. 6

5.2. COR/TPOC Meetings with the Contractor…………………………………….. 6

5.3. Evaluation Ratings Definitions….……………………………………………... 7

6. Issues Discovered…………………………………………………………………… 8

6.1. Requirements Not Met …………….…………………………………………… 8

6.2. The Corrective Action Request…………………………………………………. 8

UC-35 Maintenance Performance Standards……………………………… Enclosure (1)

Data Performance Standards……………………………………………….. Enclosure (2)

Customer Complaint Form………………………………………………… Enclosure (3)

Performance Assessment Report…………………………………………… Enclosure (4)

Incentives……………………………………………………………….......... Enclosure (5)

Corrective Action Request.…………………………………………………. Enclosure (6)

Attachment (3)

1. Introduction

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document, used to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the Performance Work

Statement (PWS) entitled: PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT; CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS

SUPPORT FOR UC-35C/D. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines that the PMA-207 UC-35

Integrated Product Team (IPT) will use to monitor the performance standards or service levels required by the contract. 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.

The contract supports UC-35 daily operations at VMR JRB New Orleans, VMR JB Andrews, MCAS

Futenma, MCAS Miramar, MCAS Cherry Point and deployed sites. The Contractor shall provide organizational and depot level maintenance; and program, technical, financial, and material management of

Commander, Naval Air Forces Reserves, Marine Forces Pacific, and Marine Forces Command UC-35C/D aircraft.

The contract will be structured with FFP Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) for low-risk predictable requirements such as site maintenance and flight hour costs, labor hour CLINs for less predictable requirements such as unscheduled repairs and modifications, and cost reimbursable CLINs for emergent travel. The contract will include one base period plus two ordering periods. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2. Purpose

The QASP identifies the performance objectives to be met by the Contractor and describes and establishes the resources and processes to be used to monitor, assess, and document the Contractor’s performance in meeting those objectives. It provides direction on:

• Who will monitor – Roles and Responsibilities

• How will monitoring occur – Performance Surveillance Strategy

• How will monitoring results be documented – Documentation of Results

• What to do with the results – Issues Discovered

The QASP is particular in its direction, yet, provides flexibility to allow for changes to optimize the level of surveillance as changes may occur to the performance standards throughout the period of performance of the contract.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

3.1. Program/Project Manager (PM)

The PM provides primary program oversight, nominates the Contracting Officer’s Representative

(COR), ensures the COR is trained before performing any COR duties, and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities. While the PM may serve as a direct conduit to provide Government guidance and feedback to the Contractor on technical matters, the PM is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or any contract changes on the Government’s behalf.

3.2. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)

The PCO and ACO are responsible for contract administration, cost control, and for resolving any differences between the observations documented between the COR, the Technical Point of Contact

(TPOC), and the Contractor. The PCO will designate COR and TPOC as the Government authority for

Attachment (3) performance management. The PCO/ACO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

3.3. Contracting Officer’s Representative

The COR is designated in writing by the PCO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering the contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and ensures proper government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance.

The CORs contribution is their professional relationship with the Contracting Officer, Program

Manager 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. The COR function is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the Contractor’s performance.

The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the PCO/ACO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing Quality Assurance (QA) monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the

Inspection of Services clause for any service relating to the contract. The COR shall keep a QA file that accurately documents the Contractor’s performance. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment, which will be used in documenting past performance.

3.4. Technical Point of Contact

The TPOC will be identified in the contract to act as the authorized representative to assist in administering the contract. The TPOC is responsible for technical administration of the contract and ensures proper government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance in support of the COR. The

TPOC is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the PCO/ACO for action. The TPOC will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the Inspection of Services clause for any service relating to the contract.

4. Performance Surveillance Strategy

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.

4.1. Goal of the QASP

The QASP defines the performance surveillance approach taken by PMA-207 Executive Lift team to monitor the Contractor’s performance, which then yields information that indicates if the expected performance outcomes for the contracted effort are being achieved by the Contractor. The goal of the

QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise that the Contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and QA actions to successfully meet the terms of the contract.

Attachment (3)

4.2. Performance-Based Approach

Performance surveillance represents a significant shift away from the more traditional QA of monitoring compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. Instead, using a performance-based approach, assessments are made on the extent of achievement of performance objectives, which enables the Contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints.

4.3. Results Focused

The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus provides the Contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the expected performance objectives are being achieved and the desired performance levels are being met.

4.4. Contractor’s Responsibility

The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by Contractor employees or by sub-contractor employees. The

Contractor’s QA program should set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the performance requirements such as quality, timeliness, responsiveness, and customer satisfaction. The

Web-based Information System, with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative, enables the Government to make assessments with information the

Contractor has gathered and provided to the Government.

4.5. Government Representative

The Government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the Contractor and Government Officials to determine how the Contractor is performing against the stated performance objectives. The Government will assess the Contractor’s performance and notify the Contractor of those assessments. The Contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance objectives are being achieved and the desired performance levels are being met.

4.6. Methods of Surveillance

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the Government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance are:

Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR/TPOC or designated inspector.

Reviewing and monitoring the Contract Performance Metrics – Operational Readiness requirements in accordance with the PWS.

Reviewing and monitoring the Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) – See Exhibit A under Section J of the contract.

Program Management Reviews – In accordance with the PWS and applicable contract deliverables.

4.7. Consequences of Performance

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and within Exhibit A of the contract. If the Contractor meets the required service or performance level, it will be paid the monthly amount agreed to under the contract. Failure to meet the required service or performance level may result in a deduction from the monthly amount as determined by the PCO/ACO. Furthermore, it may result in negative trends in the CPARS.

Attachment (3)

4.8. Performance Standards

The UC-35 Maintenance Performance Standards, Enclosure (1) and Data Performance Standards, Enclosure (2), are lists of performance objectives and standards that must be met by the Contractor.

The Performance Standards detail the method of surveillance the COR and TPOC will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file and forwarded to the appropriate offices for review. The Performance Standards define 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 standards.

4.9. Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of services provided and can be measured through customer complaints. Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must be presented clearly and in writing. The complaint must be detailed, must be signed, and must be forwarded to the COR and TPOC as soon as possible. Upon receipt of the

Customer Complaint Form, Enclosure (3), the COR and TPOC will investigate. Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

5. Documentation of Results

5.1. Performance Assessment Report

The Government’s surveillance, accomplished by the COR and TPOC, will be reported using the

Performance Assessment Report form, Enclosure (4), and Incentives, Enclosure (5), summarizing the overall results of the QA surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The form, when completed, will document the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved. This written report may include the Contractor’s submitted reports. It will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the Contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost, technical and scheduling objectives. The COR and TPOC will retain a file of all completed QA surveillance forms, reports, recommendations and any actions related to the performance of the Contractor. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract.

5.2. COR/TPOC Meetings with the Contractor

The COR and TPOC may require the Contractor’s Project Manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the COR and TPOC and other Government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR and TPOC will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the

Contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the Contractor; however, if the need arises, the

Contractor will meet with the COR and TPOC as often as required or per the Contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis.

Issues and concerns of both parties.

Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis.

Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness.

Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes.

Contractor nonconformity will be addressed via issuance of a Corrective Action Request

(CAR), Enclosure (6).

Attachment (3)

5.3. Evaluation Ratings Definitions

In evaluating the quality of the Contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings will be used in accordance with FAR 42.1503 TABLE 42-1:

Table 42-1—Evaluation Ratings Definitions

Rating Definition

Exceptional

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 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 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 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 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

Attachment (3)

6. Issues Discovered

6.1. Requirements Not Met

The Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards, service levels and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL) have been met. If the Contractor has not met the minimum requirements, the COR and TPOC must coordinate and communicate with the

Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance that the

Contractor can develop a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels. The COR, TPOC, and Contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Recommendations regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels will be sent forward to the Contracting Officer, which, if approved, will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the PCO/ACO.

6.2. The Corrective Action Request (CAR)

The CAR, Enclosure (6), will be used to document the deficiency and provide a means of response for the Contractor.

Attachment (3)

Enclosure (1)

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

UC-35 Maintenance Performance Standards

Description

RFP/PWS

Ref.

Performance Standard Acceptable Quality Level Surveillance

Method/Measure

Incentives Objective Marginal

Provide aircraft for scheduled launch window.

(Launch

Window)

PWS

para

5.7

Requirements and objectives met when the aircraft is ready for launch one hour prior to schedule time, 95% of the time.

objectives met when the aircraft is ready for launch one hour prior to schedule time, 90% to 94% of the time.

Surveillance by COR

See

Enclosure

(5)

Provide aircraft that complete scheduled sorties.

(Mission

Capable Rate)

App H objectives met on time, 95% of the time.

time, 90% to 94% of the time.

Provide real-time accurate aircraft, engines and funds information and documentation.

(Web-based

Information

System

Performance)

3.16 time, 95% of the time.

time, 90% to 94% of the time.

Attachment (3)

Enclosure (2)

Data Performance Standards

Description

RFP/PWS

Ref.

Performance Standard Acceptable Quality Level Surveillance

Method/Measure

Objective Marginal

CDRL

RFP

Exhibit

A

CDRL, 95% of content acceptable on first submission to

Government;

submission delay less than 2 days; 100% acceptable on final submission to

Government.

CDRL, 90% to 94% of first submission to

Government;

submission delayed 2 to

4 days; 100% acceptable on final

Contract Funds

Status Report

3.16.2, App E first submission to

Government;

submission delay less than 2 days; 100% acceptable on final first submission to

Government;

submission delayed 2 to

4 days; 100% acceptable on final

Aircraft

(Engine) Daily

Status Report

3.16 first submission to

Government;

submission delay less than 2 days; 100% acceptable on final first submission to

Government;

submission delayed 2 to

4 days; 100% acceptable on final

Attachment (3)

Enclosure (3)

Customer Complaint Form

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION

BUILDING NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL

PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

Attachment (3)

Enclosure (4)

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACT/TASK ORDER NUMBER 2. CONTRACTOR 3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (QAP) SIGNATURE AND DATE

5. QAP PHONE 6. SUSPENSE DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)

NEW

REPEAT

NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or SOW PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED

9. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY (IF DEFICIENCY BOX WAS

CHECKED)

10. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CONCUR NON-CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF

QAP CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. CONCUR NON-CONCUR QAP SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. QAP REMARKS (REQUIRED)

16. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS

Attachment (3)

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

Continuation Sheet

(Number to correspond with applicable Item Number on reverse)

Attachment (3)

Performance Assessment Report (PAR) Instructions

Block 1. Quality Assurance Personnel (QAP) enters contract or task order number.

Block 2. QAP enters contractor name.

Block 3. QAP enters type of services.

Block 4. QAP signs and dates.

Block 5. QAP enters telephone number.

Block 6. QAP assigns suspense date for Contractor Representative validation if a deficiency box was checked in Block 7.

Part I. Contractor Performance

Block 7. QAP checks all boxes that apply.

Block 8. QAP enters Services Summary or Statement of Work (SOW) paragraph item reviewed.

Block 9. QAP enters brief description of deficiency and tracking number if the deficiency box was checked in Block 7.

Detailed description will be on Corrective Action Report (CAR).

Block 10. QAP enters a detailed performance assessment if the deficiency box in Block 7 was not checked.

Parts II and III will be used only if a deficiency was documented in Part I.

Part II. Contractor Validation

Block 11. Contractor Representative checks one box in response to QAP cited deficiency. If Concurrence is indicated, Contractor Representative continues to Block 12. If Non-Concurrence is indicated, continue to Block 13 and state reason(s) for Non-Concurrence with QAP cited deficiency and return PAR to QAP.

Block 12. Contractor Representative enters Estimated Completion Date of Corrective Action and continues to Block 13.

Block 13. Contractor Representative details Corrective Action and the Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence or Reason for

Non-Concurrence of QAP cited deficiency.

Part III. Deficiency Corrected

Block 14. QAP checks appropriate block, signs, and dates.

Block 15. (Required Entry) QAP remarks regarding the Corrective Action and the Action Taken to

Prevent Recurrence. If Non-Concur was checked, this block should be very detailed to explain why.

Block 16. Contractor Representative enters remarks if further discussion is needed about QAP concurrence with

Contractor’s Corrective Action and Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence.

Continuation Sheet. The Continuation Sheet is to be used to expand on any information that will not fit in the applicable numbered block.

Attachment (3)

Enclosure (5)

Assessment

Period

Acceptable Performance Definition How Measured Incentives

Year 1 All measurement areas rated

“Satisfactory” or above. See para

5.3. Evaluation Ratings Definitions

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 para

5.3. Evaluation Ratings Definitions

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive

Year 3 All measurement areas rated

“Satisfactory” or above. See para

5.3. Evaluation Ratings Definitions

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive

Attachment (3)

Enclosure (6)

Corrective Action Request

CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUEST (CAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACTOR

2. CONTRACT NUMBER

3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA

5. SUSPENSE DATE

6. CONTROL

NUMBER

7. DEFICIENCY MAJOR MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

11. COR DETERMINATION

ACCEPTED REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE