Attachment_2-QASP.PDF

DRAFT

N00421-17-R-0018

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

For

Contracted Air Services (CAS)

Terminal Attack Controller Trainer (TACT) Services

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure the systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the performance based service tasks under the planned contract. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics, the Government receives the quality of services required under the contract, and that the actual performance results are documented in accordance with this plan.

This QASP describes how the Government will observe, evaluate and document the contractor's performance in meeting the critical performance standards identified in the contract and task orders.

Specifically, the QASP will identify the Government resources responsible for monitoring performance and surveillance methods that will be utilized in determining the quality level of services and products delivered under the contract. The intent is to establish and properly execute a QASP that will assist the Government in obtaining services from the contractor.

The contract required, in support of Contracted Air Services (CAS) Program Office (PMA-226), is to acquire Terminal Attack Controller Trainer (TACT) services to the Department of the Navy (DoN) and

United States Marine Corps (USMC) Fleet customers and other Department of Defense (DoD) agencies.

The resultant contract is anticipated to be a performance-based Multiple Award (MAC) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract. This contract will have a Ten Year ordering period. A properly executed and administered 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 inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in the contract, 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 QASP. 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.

The QASP on the other hand, is put in place to provide Government surveillance and oversight of the

Contractor's efforts to assure that they are timely, effective, and are delivering the results specified in the 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 AIR 2.5.1.13. The

ACO will be designated in the resulting contract. Contracting Officers are designated via a written warrant, which sets forth limitations of authority.

Contracting Officer 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 a written letter of appointment.

5. Responsibilities

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

Contracting Officer - The Contracting Officer shall monitor performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the terms of the contract and safeguard 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. The Contracting Officer is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor's performance.

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. In addition to the continuous monitoring of performance, the COR will also submit an annual assessment in the Navy's

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In CPARS, the COR assesses general quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, small business compliance, and other important areas. 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 Quality Assurance (QA) Surveillance

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) - CPARS reports will impact the determination to issue task orders under this contract and will impact the contractor's ability to compete on future DoD contracts. 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 annually. This evaluation will be one determinant in the continuation of issuing task orders under this contract. The Government for this procurement will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, management, and other areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout

DoD, and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP.

QASP - The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR in the technical administration of this QASP. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of QA surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist provided as Enclosure (4) herein.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1), (2), and (3) sets forth the Terminal Attack Controller Trainer (TACT) Services Performance

Standards, Data Performance Standards, and Incentives for the Contractor and COR. Enclosure (4) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document on a monthly basis the results of the surveillance and shall be provided to the Contracting Officer on a quarterly basis.

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 each task order.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) –Terminal Attack Controller Trainer (TACT) Mission / Performance Standards

Enclosure (2) –CDRL Data Performance Standards

Enclosure (3) -Incentives

Enclosure (4) - Terminal Attack Controller Trainer (TACT) Activity Checklist

TERMINAL ATTACK CONTROLLER TRAINER (TACT)

MISSION/PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

PWS Task Description

Performance Standards

Required and Tied to

CPARS Ratings

Surveillance Method/Measure

Incentives

Provide Contracted

Offensive Air Support

Services for Terminal

Attack Controller

Training (TACT) in support NAWDC and

USMC JTAC utilizing aircraft which meet

Requirements within the

PWS.

Metric 1

Provide the prescribed aircraft and required crew & payload

95% of the time to be mission effective.

9 5 % = Exceptional

90% = Very Good

85% = Satisfactory

80% = Marginal

<80% = Unsatisfactory

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Mission Effectiveness is the total sorties flown in which the aircraft’s function as required by the PWS and in accordance with scheduled flights / sorties prescribed by Scheduling

Officer (SO) / NAWDC or USMC Course

Coordinator divided into the total sorties scheduled to achieve percentage (e.g. 49 flown/50 scheduled = 98%). Excludes canceled sorties by customer or due to weather related occurrences.

See enclosure 3.

Provide Flight crews that are trained, qualified, and scheduled in accordance with the

PWS and FAA Part 91 rules and regulations.

Metric 2

Provide qualified flight crews

(pilots) to support mandatory mission requirement profile (e.g.

based on payload, time on station, A/C configuration, etc.)

95% of the time for each scheduled mission.

100% = Exceptional

98% = Very Good

95% = Satisfactory

91% = Marginal

<90% = Unsatisfactory

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Take total mission / sortie requirement profile in accordance with scheduled flights prescribed by

Scheduling Officer (SO) / NAWDC or USMC

Course Coordinator and divide into the total requirement profiles scheduled to achieve percentage (e.g. 49 mission profiles met satisfactorily/50 scheduled = 98%)

Excludes canceled sorties by customer or due to weather-related occurrences.

enclosure

3.

Contractor to maintain

Government Furnished

Equipment (GFE) accountability IAW DI-

MGMT-80269

Metric 3

Contractor shall account for all

GFE with a goal of 100% accuracy and a Satisfactory metric of 95%. Reports shall be submitted semi- annually and in compliance with Dl-MGMT-

80269.

100% = Exceptional

97% = Very Good

95% = Satisfactory

90% = Marginal

<90% = Unsatisfactory

Government- performed random on-site physical audits combined with 100% inspection by COR of customer GFE reports submitted per

DI-MGNT-80269 of Contractor assigned GFE against the contract master list of assigned

GFR.

Example:

Take total number of GFE items issued from the

Government to the Contractor compared to the

1149 list and complete reports submitted, then divide the total GFE items accounted for during physical audit and divide by total GFE issued by Government to derive percentage (299/300 = 99.7%).

Enclosure (1)

Safety program compliance

Metric 4

Contractor shall maintain compliance with all safety requirements by category:

1. Aircraft air & ground mishaps

2. Non-compliance with hazmat policy.

Contractor goal is 100% compliance with a Satisfactory metric of 98%

100% = Exceptional

99% = Very Good

98% = Satisfactory

97% = Marginal

<97% = Unsatisfactory

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback. Example:

Take total days where an incident has occurred and subtract that from the total number of days in the CPARS cycle...then divide that number by total number of days in the CPARS cycle to derive percentage (360/365 = 98.6%).

Fuel

Accountability

Compliance

(PWS

Paragraph

4.2.2.1)

Metric 5

Contractor shall maintain 95% accurate fuel consumption tracking between fuel cards, fuel receipts, flight logs, and fuel receipts, with a goal of 100% accurate tracking.

100% = Exceptional

97% = Very Good

95% = Satisfactory

90% = Marginal

<90% = Unsatisfactory

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Provide evidence that the fuel card charge receipts match with flight log and fuel receipts.

Take total fuel transactions (receipt amounts and gallons dispensed) and compare/match aggregate cost, gallons, fuel log, and flight log information.

Perform sample audit each month of transaction

IAW MIL-STD-105D using normal, single sample plan using Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL) 0.4 or 4%. Use table I General Inspection

Level II for sample size determination. Use table

II-A for sample plan. Aggregate 12 months of audits into % compliance. Take each months results (pass/fail) 12/12=100% compliance.

Enclosure (1)

CDRL DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

PWS/CDRL #

Standard

Performance Standards

Required

Surveillance Method/

Measure

Incentives

CDRL A001-

Airworthiness and

Related

Substantiation Data

Submission is in accordance with the

Data Item Description

(DID) cited in the

CDRL

98% of required deliverables provided on time and with no more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a re-write

100% Inspection by

COR and/or technical points of contacts as indicated on CDRL

See enclosure

3.

CDRL A002-

Management Plan and Standard

Operation

Procedures (SOP)

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL

98% of required deliverables provided on time and with no more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a re-write

100% Inspection by

COR and/or technical points of contacts as indicated on CDRL

See enclosure

3.

CDRL A003-

Fuel Chit Report

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL

98% of required deliverables provided on time and with no more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a re-write

100% Inspection by

COR and/or technical points of contacts as indicated on CDRL.

See enclosure

3.

CDRL A004-

Contractor's Progress, Status and Management

Report

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL

98% of required deliverables provided on time and with no more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a re-write

100% Inspection by

COR and/or technical points of contacts as indicated on CDRL

See enclosure

3.

CDRL A005-

Government Furnished Property (GFP) Report

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL

98% of required deliverables provided on time and with no more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a re-write

100% Inspection by

COR and/or technical points of contacts as indicated on CDRL.

See enclosure

3.

CDRL A006-

Operations Security

(OPSEC) Plan

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL

98% of required deliverables provided on time and with no more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a re-write

100% Inspection by

COR and/or technical points of contacts as indicated on CDRL

See enclosure

3.

Enclosure (2)

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this contract:

Assessment

Period

Acceptable

Performance

Definition

How Measured Incentives

Year 1

All measurement areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual Assessment

Period: (12th month into contract period).

Evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous

6 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuance of task orders in Year 2*

(+) Receives a positive assessment (CPARS), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuance of task orders in Year 2*

(-)Receives a negative assessment (CPARS), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

Year 2 areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual Assessment

Period: (24th month into contract period).

Evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous

12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuance of task orders in Year 3* issuance of task orders in Year 3*

(-)Receives a negative assessment (CPARS), appropriate for the quality

Year 3 areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual Assessment

Period: (36th month into contract period).

Evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous

12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuance of task orders in Year 4* issuance of task orders in Year 4*

Year 4 areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual Assessment

Period: (48th month into contract period).

Evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuance of task orders in Year 5* issuance of task orders in Year 5*

Year 5 areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual Assessment

Period: (60th month into contract period).

Evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuance of task orders in Year 6* issuance of task orders in Year 6*

Year 6 areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual Assessment

Period: (72nd month into contract period). Evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 6 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuance of task orders in Year 7* issuance of task orders in Year 7*

Year 7 areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual Assessment

Period: (84th month into contract period).

Evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous

12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuance of task orders in Year 8* issuance of task orders in Year 8*

Year 8 areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual Assessment

Period: (96th month into contract period).

Evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous

12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuance of task orders in Year 9* issuance of task orders in Year 9*

Year 9 areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual Assessment

Period: (108th month into contract period).

Evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuance of task orders in Year 10* issuance of task orders in Year 10*

Year 10 areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual Assessment

Period: (120th month into contract period).

Evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

*The Government reserves the right to not issue task orders unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.

**Evaluation Ratings will be in accordance with FAR 42.1503.

Enclosure (3)

TERMINAL ATTACK CONTROLLER TRAINER (TACT)

ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

Monthly Surveillance Format Used:

The COR will perform a monthly assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management

Responsiveness, Utilization of Small Business, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3).

Description Surveillance Method/Measure

Date Planned

Date Completed

Quality Metric =

Schedule Metric =

Cost Control Metric =

CPARS

Mgmt.

Metric

CPARS

Utilization of Small Business (yes/no)

Other Areas

As described above in Enclosure 1& 2

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback

TBD

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback

Enclosure (4)

Monthly Summary of Ratings:

Quality

Number of Exceptional

Number of Very Good

Number of Satisfactory

Number of Marginal

Number of Unsatisfactory

Schedule

Number of Exceptional

Number of Very Good

Number of Satisfactory

Cost Control

Number of Very Good

Number of Satisfactory

Number of Marginal

Number of Unsatisfactory

Management Responsiveness

Number of Exceptional

Number of Very Good

Number of Satisfactory

Utilization of Small Business

Number of Very Good

Number of Satisfactory

Number of Marginal

Number of Unsatisfactory

Other Areas

Number of Exceptional

Number of Very Good

Number of Satisfactory

Surveillance:

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (4) and the monthly summary of ratings.

Description Surveillance Method/

Measure

Date Planned Date Completed Summary

Rating Results

Quality of Product or

Service

Review of Monthly

Ratings.

Metric = CPARS ratings

Schedule

Ratings.

Cost Control

Ratings

Management Responsiveness

Utilization of Small Business

Concerns

(Yes/No)

Other Areas

Enclosure (4)