Attachment_4__Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan.docx

RFP# N00421-17-R-0036

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) For Airborne Range Support Services (ARSS)

1. Purpose

This QASP is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the performance based contract. 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 QASP describes how the Government will observe, evaluate and document the contractor’s performance in meeting the critical performance standards identified in the contract. 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 is for Contracted Air Services (CAS) Program Office (PMA-226) that will provide Contractor owned and Contractor operated (COCO) aircraft to the Department of the Navy Fleet/Test customers to perform ARSS, which includes Range Surveillance and Clearance (RS&C) and Airborne Telemetry (TM) to ensure Department of Defense (DoD) Ranges are clear to support missile testing and fleet training exercises. The testing consists of subsurface, surface, and air testing with a number of multi-service projects for the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) community at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), Hawaii; Point Mugu Sea Range (PMSR), California; and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. During the testing/training, operations may cover a distance of several thousand square miles, whereby ships and private surface vessels need to be notified for the purpose of clearing the range.

The resultant contract will be a performance-based Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for range clearing flights, telemetry flights, ferry flights, GFP installation and removal, No Fly/Standby Days and stand up capability; a Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLIN for advanced aircraft modification; and a Cost-Reimbursable (CR) CLIN for ODC (travel/material). The total ordering period duration of this IDIQ contract will be for four (4) years and three-hundred and sixty-four (364) days from the contract award date. 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 the contract and under individual 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 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 oversight of the contractor’s efforts to ensure that they are timely, effective and are delivering the result specified in each task order under the contract.

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 contracts such as the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) or Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) for Contracts authorized to make determination and findings on behalf of the Government. 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’s 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.

Alternative Contracting Officer Representative (ACOR) – An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as its authorized representative, in the absence of the COR, to assist in administering the contract. The ACOR will be appointed in the resulting service contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Government Flight Representative (GFR) – The GFR is responsible for surveillance of Contractor flight and ground operations involving contractor aircraft. GFR duties and responsibilities are described in DCMA INST 8210.1C, Chapter 7 (NAVAIRINST 3710.1G).

Program Manager (PM)/CAS Integrated Product Team Lead (IPTL) – The PM provides primary program oversight, nominates the COR, and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities. The IPTL executes the program as the PM’s primary representative.

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. 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). For CPARS, the COR assesses general quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, small business compliance, and other important areas. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect contract price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

Alternative Contracting Officer Representative (ACOR) – An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as its authorized representative, in the absence of the COR, to assist in administering the contract. The ACOR will be appointed in the resulting service contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Government Flight Representative (GFR) – The GFR is responsible for surveillance of Contractor ground operations involving Government aircraft. GFR duties and responsibilities are described in DCMA INST 8210.1C, Chapter 7 (NAVAIRINST 3710.1G).

Program Manager (PM)/ CAS Integrated Product Team Lead (IPTL) – The Program Manager (PM) provides primary program oversight, nominates the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities. The IPTL executes the program as the PM’s primary representative. The PM for this contract is PMA-226.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for Contracted Air Services is becoming very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS rating under this contract. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the midpoint of each period of performance. The Government for this procurement will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of small business, and other important 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.

Enclosures (1), (2), and (3) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the Contractor and the COR while enclosure (4) 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.

8. Documentation In addition to providing quarterly reports to the Contracting Officer, the COR will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file within the Contracting Officer’s Representative Tool (CORT). 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) – Contracted Air Service Performance Standards Enclosure (2) - Data Performance Standards Enclosure (3) - Incentives Enclosure (4) - Surveillance Activity Checklist

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Enclosure (1)

RANGE SUPPORT SERVICE

MISSION/PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

PBWS Task Description

ARSS provided to support multiple agencies utilizing aircraft that possess and maintain a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 8110-3) airworthiness certificate and flight clearances.

4.3 4.3.1 4.3.1.1 4.3.1.2 4.3.1.3 4.3.1.4 4.3.1.5 4.3.1.6

Metric 1 Provide the prescribed aircraft and required crew 90% of the time for each ready for tasking mission 99 - 100% = Exceptional 97 - 98% = Very Good 95 - 96% = Satisfactory 90 - 94% = Marginal <90% = Unsatisfactory 100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Take total missions flown in accordance with scheduled flights prescribed by Scheduling Officer (SO) and divide by the total missions scheduled to achieve percentage (e.g. 49 flown/50 scheduled = 98%). Excludes canceled missions by customer or due to weather related occurrences.

See enclosure 3.

Provide Flight crews that are trained, qualified, and scheduled in accordance with FAA Part 91 rules and regulations.

4.1.3.ii 5.5 5.5.2.4 5.5.2.5 5.5.2.6 5.5.2.7 5.5.2.8 5.5.2.9 5.5.2.11

Metric 2 Provide qualified flight crews (pilots & crew members) to support mandatory mission requirements 90% of the time for each scheduled mission.

99 - 100% = Exceptional 97 - 98% = Very Good 95 - 96% = Satisfactory 90 - 94% = Marginal <90% = Unsatisfactory 100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Take total missions accomplished in accordance with scheduled flights prescribed by Scheduling Officer (SO) and divide by the total missions scheduled to achieve percentage (e.g. 49 missions met satisfactorily/50 scheduled = 98%) Excludes canceled missions by customer or due to weather related incidences.

See enclosure 3.

Provide FAA certified Airframe and Power Plant Maintenance Technicians to perform maintenance of A/C and install, remove, and maintain Government Furnished Property (GFP) who are trained and licensed IAW 14 CFR.

4.1.3.v 5.5 5.5.2.12 5.5.2.13 6.0 6.2

Metric 3 Provide GFP installers and FAA certified Airframe and Power Plant Maintenance Technicians who can provide a Fully Mission Capable (FMC) aircraft 90% of the time.

99 - 100% = Exceptional 97 - 98% = Very Good 95 - 96% = Satisfactory 90 - 94% = Marginal <90% = Unsatisfactory 100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Take total FMC A/C (not down for maintenance, supply, or payload deficiencies when scheduled to support mission) and divide that into the total aircraft in inventory/on-hand for tasking to achieve percentage (e.g. 49 FMC A/C /50 A/C in inventory/on-hand = 98%).

See enclosure 3.

Contractor shall account for 100% of GFP in compliance with DI-MGMT-80269.

100% = Satisfactory <100% = Unsatisfactory 100% Inspection by COR of customer 1149’s.

Example:

Take total GFP items issued from the government to the Contractor and compare that to the WAWF Process. Take total GFP items accounted for during audit and divide by total GFP issued by government to derive percentage (299/300 = 99.7%)

See enclosure3.

5.3.1 5.3.2 5.4 5.5.2.11

Metric 5 Contractor shall maintain 100% compliance with all safety requirements by category:

1. aircraft air & ground mishaps

2. non-compliance with hazmat policy.

100% = Satisfactory <100% = Unsatisfactory 100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Take total incident-free days on detachment divided by total number on detachment to derive percentage (118/120 = 98.3%).

See enclosure 3.

4.2.5.1 4.2.5.2

Metric 6 Contractor shall maintain 100% accurate fuel consumption tracking between fuel cards/fuel receipts, flight logs and fuel reports.

100% Satisfactory <100% = Unsatisfactory 100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Provide evidence that the fuel card charge receipts matched with flight log and fuel report. Take total fuel transactions (receipt amounts and gallons dispensed) and compare/match aggregate cost & gallons to fuel log & flight log. Perform sample audit each month of transaction IAW Mil-Std-105D using normal, single sample plan @ AQL 0.4 or 4%. Use table I General Inspection Level II for sample size determination. Use table II-A for sample plan. Aggregate 6 months of audits into % compliance. Take each month’s results (pass/fail) 6/6=100% compliance.

See enclosure 3.

Enclosure (2)

DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Method/ Measure Incentives

Airworthiness Data / Ground and Flight Operations Procedures (A001)

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% acceptable on first submission to Government; 100% acceptable on 2nd submission to Government

100% Inspection by COR and/or ACOR.

See Enclosure 3.

Management Plan and Standard Operation Procedures (A002)

95% acceptable on first submission to Government; 100% acceptable on 2nd submission to Government

See Enclosure 3.

Fuel Chit Report (A003)

95% acceptable on first submission to Government; 100% acceptable on 2nd submission to Government

See Enclosure 3.

Contractor’s Progress, Status and Management Report (A004)

95% acceptable on first submission to Government; 100% acceptable on 2nd submission to Government

See Enclosure 3.

Government Furnished Property Report (A005)

95% acceptable on first submission to Government; 100% acceptable on 2nd submission to Government

See Enclosure 3.

Operational Security Plan (A006)

95% acceptable on first submission to Government; 100% acceptable on 2nd submission to Government

See Enclosure 3.

See Enclosure 3.

See Enclosure 3.

Enclosure (3)

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this contract.

Incentives

Ordering Year 1:

Not more than 2 of the measurement areas rated below “Satisfactory”. None of the measurement areas are rated below “Marginal”.

See below.

Midpoint of the assessment period (6th month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 6 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for satisfactory or better Final CPARS rating.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition which will result in a marginal or unsatisfactory Final CPARs rating.

Ordering Year 2:

Not more than 2 of the measurement areas rated below “Satisfactory”. None of the measurement areas are rated below “Marginal”.

Midpoint of the assessment period (18th month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for satisfactory or better Final CPARS rating.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition which will result in a marginal or unsatisfactory Final CPARs rating.

Ordering Year 3:

Not more than 2 of the measurement areas rated below “Very Good”. Not more than 1 of the measurement areas rated below “Satisfactory”. None of the measurement areas are rated below “Marginal”.

Midpoint of the assessment period (30th month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for satisfactory or better Final CPARS rating.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition which will result in a marginal or unsatisfactory Final CPARs rating.

Ordering Year 4:

Not more than 2 of the measurement areas rated below “Very Good”. Not more than 1 of the measurement areas rated below “Satisfactory”. None of the measurement areas are rated below “Marginal”.

See below.

Midpoint of the assessment period (42nd month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for satisfactory or better Final CPARS rating.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition which will result in a marginal or unsatisfactory Final CPARs rating.

Ordering 364 Days:

Not more than 2 of the measurement areas rated below “Very Good”. Not more than 1 of the measurement areas rated below “Satisfactory”. None of the measurement areas are rated below “Marginal”.

Midpoint of the assessment period (54th month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for satisfactory or better Final CPARS rating.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition which will result in a marginal or unsatisfactory Final CPARs rating.

All PBWS/CDRL tasks, including PBWS/CDRL sub-tasks, will be assessed focusing on the following:

Quality of Product or Service – Assess the contractor’s effort to transform operational needs and requirements into an integrated solution. Areas of focus may include the planning and management of program tasks, the quality of support provided throughout all phases of contract execution, the integration of program management specialties, management of interfaces, and the management of a totally integrated effort of all program management concerns to meet cost, performance, and schedule objectives. Assess how successfully the contractor meets program quality.

Schedule – Assess the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule by assessing the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events, discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions.

Cost Control – Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. Is the contractor experiencing cost growth or overrun? If so, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns. For contracts where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor provided person-hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility, through the efficient use of resources in each work effort should be assessed.

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, including whether the contractor met small/small disadvantaged and women-owned business participation goals. Discuss the extent to which the contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract; identifies and applies resources required to meet 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. If applicable, identify any other management areas that are unique to the contract.

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 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 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.

Enclosure (4)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

Monthly Surveillance:

The COR will perform a monthly assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure 3.

Description

Surveillance Method/ Measure

Other

Assess customer billing and work tracking

Assess task status tracking

TBD

Monthly Summary of Ratings:

Annual Surveillance:

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure 3 and the monthly summary of ratings. This annual assessment will occur at the midpoint of each year and cover the previous 12 months, except for the first ordering year which will cover only the previous 6 months.

Quality of Product or Service

Review of Monthly Ratings

TBD

Schedule

Cost Control

Business Relations

Management

Other Areas