Attachment

Attachment 4

Appendix A

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) For

U.S. Navy T56 Series IV Engine Module 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 task 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 T56 Series IV engine modules, and propulsion systems. Specifically, the Contractor shall provide Ready For Issue (RFI) modules and propulsion systems to support E-2C aircraft engine/module requirements for the Navy and FMS customers. The vehicle will be a full and open competition, fixed price, requirements 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 task orders, to be executed by the Contracting Officer 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 and the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. The Contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the contract and follow-on task orders. The QASP on the other hand, 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 task 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-2.2.2.2.

Contracting Officer’s Representative - 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. The CPARS 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 COR 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 T56 Series IV Services 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 COR to document the results of the surveillance and shall be provided to the Contracting Officer on a quarterly basis.

a. Contract Performance Metrics – Engine module repair, turnaround time, production quality defect rate, power section first pass yield, and power section performance margin - see Enclosure (1).

b. Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) - Applies to each CDRL - see Enclosure (2).

c. Customer Feedback/Reporting The COR will maintain a file for all customer feedback. Customer feedback will be obtained via Fleet Production Quality Deficiency Reports (PQDRs), 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 IV Engine Module Depot Repair QASP Enclosure 1

PERFORMANCE METRICS STANDARDS

Description

Standard

ACCEPTABLE

QUALITY

LEVEL (AQL)

Surveillance

Method/Measure

Incentives

Engine Module Repair Turn Around Time

RFI Engine Module repair contractual

TAT

100% within contractual

TAT

requirement

Monthly Contractor Reporting – Validation by COR and DCMA

See below

Production Quality Defect Rate

Number of

PQDR

written determined to be the fault of the

PQDRs at 1% or less of total module repairs

Government PQDR database

- Validation by COR and Customer Feedback

Power Section First Pass Yield

Ratio of Power Sections Passed vs.

number repaired.

90% pass rate

Reporting –

DCMA, COR

Power Section Performance Margin

Minimum Power Section Test Cell Performance

100% or higher performance margin

Reporting –

DCMA, COR

Incentives:

The Contractor’s incentive, both positive and negative, is the potential for a follow-on T56 Series IV services contract or similar contracts providing depot engine repair services to other customers.

Performance Metrics Descriptions:

1. Module Repair Turn Around Time Metric

The number of calendar days from the induction of a T56 Series Propulsion System, Module, by the Contractor to the signature date of the DD250 providing final acceptance of the RFI asset by the Navy. TAT metrics will be graded and documented annually on the CPARS.

Enclosure 1

2. Engine Module Production Quality Defect Rate Metric

The Contractor will be evaluated on the number of PQDRs generated against Contractor repaired items that are found to be the fault of the Contractor. The Government will determine if repaired item failures reported are due to Contractor fault. The Government will verify PQDRs utilizing Government databases. PQDR metrics will be graded and documented annually on the

CPARS.

3. Power Section First Pass Yield Metric

The number of power sections produced which passed minimum test cell performance requirements on the first performance run divided by the total number of power sections produced. The Government will verify Contractor reported power section first pass yield data utilizing DCMA reporting as a primary source and review of test cell run sheets as a secondary means. Power section first pass yield metrics will be graded and documented annually on the CPARS.

4. Power Section Module Performance Margin Metric

The Contractor shall meet requirements for minimum power section performance margin as defined in the T56 Series engine module repair contract. The Government will verify Contractor reported power section performance utilizing DCMA reporting as a primary source and review of test cell run sheets as a secondary means. Power section performance metrics will be graded and documented annually on the CPARS.

Enclosure (2)

DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

CDRL Description Standard AQL Surveillance

Method/ Measure

Incentives

Production Plan and Status Report

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

Teardown and Inspection Report

DID cited CDRL

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

Cannibalization request

DID cited CDRL

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

Material demilitarization and Disposition Listing

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited CDRL

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

Material disposal procedures

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited CDRL

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

Random Inspection by COR

Technical Directive Compliance 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 T56 SERIES IV 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 of T56 IV propulsion systems. 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

Enclosure (2) 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 discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activities 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

Annual Surveillance:

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

Description Surveillance Method/

Date Planned Date Completed Summary

Rating/Results

CPAR Consolidation

100% Review by

Annually from contract award