Att_(5)_QASP_AE2100D3_12_April_2016.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) For AE2100D3 Engine Depot Level Repair

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure the systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the service base delivery order. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract.

This contract requirement is for depot level repair of engine modules including repair of the KC-130J propulsion system consisting of the AE2100D3 engine and the KC-130J Quick Engine Change Kit. The contract vehicle will be a Single- Award, Fixed Price, Five Year IDIQ contract, with one base year and four option years. 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 Contract Section E Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in delivery orders, to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.

3. Scope

The QASP is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor’s quality control efforts to assure that they are timely, effective and are delivering the results specified in the contract or delivery order.

4. Government Resources

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

Contracting Officer - A 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 NAVAIR code AIR 2.5.2.3.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) - An individual designated in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative to assist in administering the contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of designation.

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. It is the Contracting Officer that assures the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the contract.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (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 contract price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for engine support services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this contract. Evaluation using the CPARS format will be provided at the end of each 12 month period of the contract. In addition, Informal Performance Assessment Report (IPARs) will be provided every three months to provide interim feedback. The CPARS/IPARS will address the quality of service provided, schedule, business relations, management, and other important areas.

As this information may affect future source selections throughout DOD, the annual Government CPARS will be used appropriately as a complementary performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP.

b. QASP - The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the CORs in the technical administration of this QASP. The form to be used for documentation of QA surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist provided as Enclosure (3) herein.

7. Identified QA Surveillance Tasks

The following items are to be identified within the AE2100D3 engine depot level repair contract and are to be monitored under this QASP. Enclosures (1) and (2) set forth the performance standards and surveillance methods for the Contractor and COR while enclosure (3) provides the checklist and means for the CORs to document the results of the surveillance and shall be provided to the Contracting Officer on a quarterly basis.

a. Contract Performance Metrics – See Appendix C of the PWS.

b. Contract Data Requirements - Applies to each CDRL - see Exhibit A.

c. Customer Feedback/Reporting The CORs will maintain a file for all customer feedback. Customer feedback will be obtained via Fleet Quality Deficiency Reports (QDRs), Engineering Investigation (EI) Requests, Hazardous Material Reports (HMRs), and via inputs at System Safety Working Group, Operational Advisory Group and other Fleet meetings.

8. Documentation

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

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) - Performance Metrics Standards Enclosure (2) - Data Performance Standards Enclosure (3) - Surveillance Activity Checklist

T56 Series III Engine Module Depot Repair QASP Enclosure 1

PERFORMANCE METRICS STANDARDS

Description

Standard

ACCEPTABLE

QUALITY

LEVEL (AQL)

Surveillance

Method/Measure

Incentives

QECA Turn Around Time

RFI QECA

repair contractual

TAT

100% within requirement

Monthly Contractor Reporting – Validation by COR and DCMA

See below

PGB and GMAD Turn

RFI PGB

and GMAD repair

Reporting –

RADCON

Survey Turn

RADCON

Survey

Reporting –

Incentives:

The Contractor’s incentive, both positive and negative, is the potential for a follow-on AE2100D3 engine depot repair services contract or similar contracts providing depot engine repair services to other customers.

Performance Metrics Descriptions:

1. Engine Repair Turn Around Time Metric See Appendix C of the PWS. TAT metrics will be evaluated and documented quarterly on the IPAR and CPARS.

2. PGB and GMAD Turn Around Time Metric

3. RADCON Survey Turn Around Time Metric

AE-2100D3 Engine Depot Repair QASP Enclosure (2)

DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

CDRL Description Standard AQL Surveillance

Method/ Measure

Incentives

Management Plan

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited CDRL

95% acceptable on first submission to Government;100% Acceptable on second submission

100% Inspection by

COR

Conference Agenda Submission is in accordance with the DID cited CDRL

95% acceptable on first submission to Government;100% Acceptable on

Random Inspection by COR

Conference Minutes

DID cited CDRL

95% acceptable on first submission to Government;100% Acceptable on

Repairable Item Inspection Report

DID cited CDRL

95% acceptable on first submission to Government;100% Acceptable on

Incentives:

The Contractor’s incentive, both positive and negative, is the potential for a Follow-on AE2100D3 engine depot repair services contract or similar contracts providing depot engine repair services to other customers.

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

Quality of Product or Service – Assess the Contractor’s efforts in meeting all technical contract requirements. Areas of focus may include the planning and management of program tasks, the quality of support provided, completeness and accuracy of deliverables, management of interfaces, Logistic support/Sustainment and the management an integrated effort to meet performance metrics.

Schedule – Assess the Contractor’s performance in meeting contractual turnaround time requirements, and performance in delivering contract data items according to CDRL requirements.

Business Relations – Assess the timelines, 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

Enclosure (2) discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract; identifies and applies resources required to meet performance metrics and schedule requirements; assigns responsibility for tasks/actions required by contract; 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 meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element and sub- element 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 element and sub-element 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 element and sub-element contain some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal - Performance does not meet contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element and sub-element 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 element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s actions appear or were ineffective.

Enclosure (3)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

Monthly Surveillance:

The Government will perform a Monthly assessment of all performance metrics listed in enclosure 2 and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in enclosure 2.

Description Surveillance Method/

Date Planned Date Completed Summary

Rating/Results

Assess Deliverables IAW Section 2 Monthly

Assess Adherence to metrics

100% Review by

Quarterly Surveillance:

The Government will perform a quarterly assessment of Quality, Schedule, Business relations, Management, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in enclosure 2.

Date Planned Date Completed Summary

IPAR consolidation

Quarterly

Annual Surveillance:

The Government will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in enclosure 2 and the Quarterly IPAR summary of ratings. This annual assessment will occur at the end of each period and cover the previous 12 months.

Date Planned Date Completed Summary

CPAR Consolidation

Annually from contract award