Attachment_2_-_QASP_Revision_1_8.14.2019.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) For PMA-274/ Presidential Helicopter Support Facility (PHSF) Aircraft Maintenance Support and Modification Services

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (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, 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. This contract requirement is for aircraft maintenance and support services for PMA-274/PHSF/HMX-1 EFD, Quantico, Virginia.

The contract will be for a five year ordering period. 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 Performance-Based Statement of Work (PBSOW) and this document, 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.

The QASP on the other hand, is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective and are delivering the results specified in 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 (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-2.5.1.12. The ACO will be designated in the resulting contract. Contracting Officers are designated via a written warrant, which sets forth limitations of authority.

Contracting Officers 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.

Government Inspection Office (GIO) – GIO personnel are responsible for surveillance of contractor aircraft ground operations under Ground and Flight Risk Clause (GFRC) as described in Defense Contract Management Agency Instruction (DCMA INST) 8210.1, Chapter 5.

5. Responsibilities

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

Contracting Officer – The Contracting Officer will monitor performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting to ensure 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 – 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 the 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.

Government Inspection Office (GIO) – GIO personnel are responsible for surveillance of contractor aircraft ground operations under the Ground and Flight Risk Clause (GFRC) as described in DCMA INST 8210.1, Chapter 5. The GIO will report directly to the Contracting Officer Representative.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The marketplace for information technology, engineering, and management support services is 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. This evaluation will be one determinant in exercising an option. The Government assessment for this procurement will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, 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.

b. QASP - This QASP defines the surveillance process, responsibilities and acceptable quality standards that will apply to performance based contractual efforts and establishes the basic scoring and reporting methodology for surveillance documentation. The below listed methods of surveillance will 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 quality assurance surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist.

7. Surveillance

Surveillance shall be performed in accordance with the performance standards and incentives set forth herein. Enclosures (1), (2), and (3) set forth the performance standards, incentives, surveillance methods, and definitions for evaluation areas and ratings for the contractor and COR. The ratings (exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, or unacceptable) will be substantiated with a data analysis score of the contractor’s performance compared to the threshold and objective for each squadron as described in Enclosure (2).

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. Revisions to the QASP

Revisions are the joint responsibility of the COR, GIO and PCO. The COR, GIO and PCO, will review the QASP annually and will make changes if necessary. This document may be changed at any time upon review and approval by the PCO and supported by the PBSOW.

10. Procedures and Records Retention

The Government COR or GIO will perform inspections to ensure Contractor compliance with the appropriate paragraphs of the PBSOW, other Government requirements, and the Contractor’s own procedures, and will record the results of the inspections, noting the date and time. If inspection indicates a performance threshold is not met, the COR or GIO will notify the Contractor and the Contracting Officer of the deficiency for correction. The Contractor shall be given a reasonable time after notification to correct the unacceptable performance. The length of time allowed to correct the problem will depend upon the requirement, complexity of the corrective action(s), and the deficiency. The Contractor will notify the COR or GIO if the time allowed for correction is not adequate. The GIO shall not consider the corrective action(s) complete until all deficiencies have been corrected and determined by the GIO to be adequate (Government follow up).

Contractor non-responsiveness, deficiencies not adequately addressed or corrected after notification of such, or estimated dates of completion that are not acceptable to the GIO will be forwarded to the PCO for action.

Surveillance of Non-Service Summary Items

All tasks may be inspected on any appropriate basis, at a frequency determined primarily by the COR and/or GIO, but also at the direction of the PCO.

Record Retention

The GIO will maintain a file (a continuity book) which contains: documentation of results of all Quality Assurance (QA) efforts including procedures review / verification, general area inspections, and product verification (i.e. flight critical/safety of flight) inspections, delegation letters, current contract/mods, QASP, training certificates, training documentation, Corrective Action Requests (CARs), and CAR log. Particular emphasis should be placed on deficiencies and corrective actions, procedural disapprovals, and rejection of product. Surveillance records must be retained for a minimum of one year after completion of the end item.

Records applicable to most recent proofing/re-proofing of each key process must be retained indefinitely.

At a minimum, records will include letters of delegation, a current copy of the contract and all attachments to include any modifications, the QASP, training, training certificates, a CAR log, all CARs, any correspondence with the Contractor, data analysis, and any other beneficial communication for proper Contractor oversight. Development of a continuity book which contains the information above is REQUIRED and will be kept for a minimum of 12 months after contract completion.

11. Data Analysis

All inspection records, observations, monthly reports, CARs and other pertinent data will be reviewed monthly by the COR/GIO to identify any trends in order to adjust surveillance activities. This does not preclude the necessity of adjusting surveillance due to specific incidents or deficiencies noted at any time.

The review should include at a minimum a description of the data analyzed, a description of the conclusions/results, and actions planned/taken. These reviews will be documented and records maintained in the site continuity book.

12. Analysis of Results

At the end of the month, the GIO will summarize all the information and compute the number of defects for each performance standard. The GIO will determine if the Contractor’s performance for the specific standard is satisfactory or unsatisfactory based on an assessment of criticality of the defects. The contractor’s performance will be documented on the Monthly COR/GIO Monthly Report.

If one or more standard is unsatisfactory, further evaluation is required to determine if the Contractor's overall performance is unsatisfactory. The GIO will assess the results of each performance standard, taking into consideration the importance and criticality of each in relation to the total service being evaluated. The GIO will document the overall evaluation for the service on the Evaluation Summary. The Monthly Report will be reviewed and signed by the PHSF Maintenance Officer (MO) then forwarded to the PCO.

13. Suggested Action

The Contractor should be notified immediately as to whether work performance has been satisfactory or not.

If the Contractor's performance is unsatisfactory, a Corrective Action Request (CAR) should be issued and other actions, such as increasing the level of surveillance, may be considered.

14. Corrective Action Requests (CARs)

CARs may be issued verbally or as written findings. Verbal CARs are only applicable to minor deficiencies that can be corrected on the spot. Written CARs will be issued for repeat verbal CARs, when major deficiencies are detected, when minor deficiencies are noted that may affect system performance or the Contractor is clearly not performing to the contract requirements. Safety items and concerns automatically require the issuance of a written CAR.

The GIO is authorized to reject all contractor work not accomplished in accordance with the contractual requirements. The type and extent of corrective action to be taken depends on the nonconformance in terms of severity, frequency, and previous corrective actions. It is essential that the GIO pursue enforcement of all contractual requirements.

When contractual non-compliances are detected, corrective action must be initiated by the GIO utilizing QASP, Corrective Action Request (CAR) within one (1) working day of discovery. Non-compliance issues should be resolved at the lowest possible level, but if the contractor is non-responsive, the GIO will escalate the CAR to a higher level of authority. The GIO shall maintain a record of all CARs initiated (verbal and written, manual or electronic), action taken, and follow-up to verify implementation and effectiveness of the contractor actions. A Corrective Action Log shall be established for maintaining and tracking all Corrective Action Reports (CARs), issued to the contractor; a copy of this log will be forwarded to the COR quarterly (January, April, July, and October). All CARs shall be recorded and tracked by a control number.

A control numbering system shall be used, with the first six digits being the first six digits of the prime contract, the next four digits will be the calendar year (CY), next the activity/command and the last three digits will identify the corrective action request (i.e., XXXXXX-XX-PHSF/HMX-1-001);

GIO shall document in the corrective action log the control number, the specific deficiency, contractor personnel with whom the deficiency was discussed, the date the deficiency was resolved and the follow-up actions taken by the GIO to verify the contractor has ensured effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

The COR is required to maintain overall visibility of all Level II CARs and above. The originator of a CAR shall follow up to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the contractor’s actions and close out the CAR when appropriate. If the contractor is not responsive to lower-level CARs, the GIO will notify the COR for escalation of the matter.

Levels of CARs

The four (4) CAR levels are as follows:

Level I Level I CAR is when a contractual noncompliance requires no special management attention to correct. A Level I CAR may be directed to working level personnel. Level I CARs may be verbal or written (manual or electronic). These should not be routed to the PCO, but must be logged in the CAR Log.

Level II Level II CARs are written (electronic) requests for corrective action for contractual noncompliance that are systemic in nature, and could adversely affect cost, schedule, or performance if not corrected in a timely manner. Level II CARs requests are directed to the contractor management level responsible for the process (maintenance supervisor).

Level III Level III CARs involve escalation of serious contractual non-compliances to top contractor management, and may incorporate contractual remedies such as reductions of progress payments, cost disallowances, cure notices, show cause letters (manual or electronic), or business management systems disapprovals. Prior to issuance, a Level III CAR must be coordinated with the PCO. Level III CARs must be directed to contractor top management. Contractor top management may be notified by the PCO that continued inaction may lead to more severe measures.

A copy of Level III CARs and all subsequent correspondence must be provided to the buying activity. All affected contract administration team members (including DCAA and buying activities as appropriate) should be kept informed of the status and disposition of Level III CAR requests.

Level IV Level IV CARs involve contractual remedies such as suspension of progress payments or product acceptance activities, termination for default, and suspension or debarment, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)/ Department of Defense Acquisition Regulations (DFARS) policies and procedures. A Level IV CAR must be issued by the cognizant ACO and must be directed to contractor top management. A copy of Level IV CARs and all subsequent correspondence must be provided to customer buying activities.

Proper coordination and/or notification among ACOs, Districts, Headquarters, customers, and other affected Government activities of Level IV CARs is required.

When written CARs are issued the document must be specific in identifying the exact deficiency and the Contractor personnel with whom the deficiency was discussed. All written CARs will require the Contractor to identify the root cause of the deficiency, action taken to correct the specific deficiency, action taken to prevent recurrence, action taken to determine if other products/aircraft are affected by same/similar deficiencies, and the date when the corrective action will be implemented. The GIO will perform a follow-up audit to assure that the Corrective Action has effectively resolved the deficiency.

Points of Contact

COR – Tim Norton

Primary GIO – David Giroux

Correspondence should be addressed to:

Presidential Helicopter Support Facility ATTN: Tim Norton 48202 Bronson Road, Bldg. 2805 R120 Patuxent River, MD 20670-1606 FAX Numbers: Commercial – 301-757-9327

Email and Phone contacts are:

15. Reporting Requirements

The Monthly Status Report shall be submitted by email by the 10th day of the following month to the COR.

The overall order schedule and performance scores will be a simple average of the schedule and performance scores, respectively, The Contractor will have 10 calendar days to protest COR/GIO Monthly Status Report scores with the final administrative decision to be made by the PCO.

Quarterly Corrective Action Log will be forwarded to the COR quarterly (January, April, July, and October).

16. Multi-functional Team

Goals of the Multi-Functional Team (MFT) The goals of this team are to provide the highest levels of Contractor and Contractor deliverables oversight possible through this Government QASP.

17. MFT Members and Their Responsibilities

The membership, goals, and responsibilities of the MFT are outlined below. Upon award of the contract, the Contractor will become a member of this team.

COR

1. Informs PCO when services are not performed or do not meet contract requirements.

2. Develops QASP with the Government Quality Assurance Representative (GQAR).

3. Develops and maintains a site continuity book with the GQAR to include current copy of contract, letters of delegation, the QASP, training, training certificates, a CAR log, copies of CARs, and other pertinent information needed for proper Government oversight of Contractor.

4. Performs data analysis in conjunction with the site Quality Assurance Representative (QAR).

5. Reports rework by Contractor in accordance with the Contract Management Plan.

6. Participates as a member of the MFT.

Tim David

Norton Giroux

Timothy.w.norton@navy.mil

David.giroux@navy.mil

301-757-0318 301-757-2017

Government Quality Assurance Representative (GQAR)

1. Maintains suitable records reflecting decisions regarding the acceptability of the requirements as well as actions to correct defects.

2. Develops site QASP with COR.

3. Develops and maintains a site continuity book with the COR to include current copy of task order, letters of delegation, the site QASP, training, training certificates, a CAR log, copies of CARs, and other pertinent information needed for proper Government oversight of Contractor.

4. Performs data analysis in conjunction with the site COR.

5. Reports rework by Contractor in accordance with the Contract Management Plan.

6. Participates as a member of the MFT.

Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO)

1. Lead authority on QASP (Performance Plan).

2. Requests rework when services are not performed or do not meet contract requirements.

3. Ensures past performance inputs are prepared documenting any performance issues.

4. Includes in the contract file documentation identifying nonperformance and actions taken.

5. Keeps communication lines open with the Contractor regarding performance issues.

6. Participates as a member of the MFT.

Contractor

1. Performs repair and maintenance services as required in the contract/task orders, including attachments.

2. Maintains approved processes/systems for collecting performance data.

3. Identifies opportunities to improve performance throughout the life of the contract—benchmarking, assessing risk, and giving advice on initiatives to the GQAR, COR, PCO in writing (e-mail is acceptable).

4. Reviews and acknowledges the QASP for information purposes only; has no editorial authority.

5. Participates as a member of the MFT.

18. MFT Performance Management

The MFT will manage the contract for the life of the contract. This team is a partnership between the Government and the Contractor to ensure the best possible service is provided for the life of the contract.

19. MFT Goal

The goal of the MFT is to give all members a vested interest in maintaining the highest level of quality service to our customers and the ability to propose/initiate improvements. The success of the contract is a combined effort of all MFT members.

20. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) – MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Enclosure (2) – DEFINITIONS FOR EVALUATION AREAS/RATINGS Enclosure (3) – INCENTIVES Enclosure (4) - MAINTENANCE OFFICER/QUALITY ASSURANCE OFFICER’S MONTHLY REPORT

Enclosure (1)

MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

1.1 Presidential Helicopter Support Facility (PHSF)/HMX-1 EFD, Quantico, Virginia

Although each metric must have a whole number score (-1, 0, or 1), it is acceptable for the overall Performance Average, as reflected on the Contractor Monthly Performance Report to be other than a whole number once averaged (i.e. -.5 or .75)

SOW TASK

DESCRIPTION

PERFORMANCE

STANDARD AND

ACCEPTABLE

QUALITY LEVEL

(AQL)

SURVEILLANCE

METHOD

INCENTIVES

Maintain / correct aircraft material condition and conduct quality programs to ensure safe flyable aircraft

Ensure aircraft Ready for Tasking (RFT) by maintaining monthly availability of each T/M/S of no less than 90%

GIO verifies daily RFT reports, averages RFT percentages and enters on monthly RFT report

Enclosure 2, paragraph 2.2.1

See Enclosure 3

Aircraft paint and final finish.

Performance standard shall be provided at time of task order award.

Government inspection and acceptance of final product.

Maintain Security clearances

Ensure personnel maintain required security clearance to perform the level of work assigned and access the facilities to perform that work.

GIO Review security clearance roster monthly

Maintain and conduct quality programs/process to ensure safe flyable aircraft

Conduct quality audits with 0 repeat discrepancies to ensure compliance to approved Ground Operating procedures

GIO review all completed audits and conduct follow ups as required

Enclosure (2)

DEFINITIONS FOR EVALUATION AREAS/RATINGS

2.1 This section describes the metrics used to measure Contractors performance. Using the COR/GIO Monthly Report Form. The COR/GIO will measure and record if the contractor “did not meet,” “met,” or “exceeded” the stated goals.

2.2 Presidential Helicopter Support Facility

Performs developmental flight-testing including aircraft flying qualities, aircraft performance and aircraft systems testing in support of the Presidential Helicopter Program. Testing of flying qualities is used to identify deficiencies related to aircraft handling qualities and their effect on mission performance. Aircraft performance testing is used to validate specification requirements and contractor compliance, as well as to obtain and develop information pertinent to mission planning and execution. System testing is used to validate the performance of associated aircraft systems with respect to aircraft mission performance.

To successfully execute missions as scheduled, PHSF must have Ready for Tasking (RFT) aircraft as defined below:

T/M/S Systems Required for RA Aircraft

NVH-3A (Project Aircraft) No Downing Discrepancies / Systems as required per test plan

NVH-60F (Project Aircraft) No Downing Discrepancies / Systems as required per test plan

VH-92A No Downing Discrepancies / Systems as required per test plan

2.2.1 READY AIRCRAFT

Performance Calculation – RFT % will be calculated by Government personnel on a monthly basis using data extracted from AMSRR. The equation: Total RFT% divided by Total number of days.

Aircraft is not available to the contractor will be extracted. Examples are:

a. Off-site modification

b. Facility repair/availability (i.e. Compass Rose)

c. Awaiting parts (AWP)

f. Technical information for a particular repair procedure that is not in the applicable MIMS and is not provided to the Contractor within 24 hours of a request for that information by the contractor.

To receive a score of 1, the Contractor must achieve 95% or more monthly RFT% for the NVH-3A, NVH- 60F and VH-92A Project aircraft.

To receive a score of 0, the Contractor must achieve no less than 90% monthly RFT% for the NVH-3A, NVH-60F and VH-92A Project aircraft. A score of -1 will be assigned any time the Contractor achieves less than 90% monthly RFT% for the NVH-3A, NVH-60F and VH-92A Project aircraft.

Enclosure (3)

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this contract.

Assessment Period Acceptable Performance

Definition How Measured

Incentives

Contract 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 (6 month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 6 months.

(+) Receive a positive final assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of services provided.

(-) Receive a negative final assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of services provided.

Contract Year2 : 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 (18 month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Receive a positive final assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of services provided.

(-) Receive a negative final assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of services provided.

Contract 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”.

See below.

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

(+) Receive a positive final assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of services provided.

(-) Receive a negative final assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of services provided.

Contract 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 (42 month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Receive a positive final assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of services provided.

(-) Receive a negative final assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of services provided.

Contract Year 5: 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 (54 month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Receive a positive final assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of services provided.

(-) Receive a negative final assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of services provided.

Enclosure (4)

MAINTENANCE OFFICER/QUALITY ASSURANCE OFFICER’S MONTHLY REPORT

NAME OF CONTRACTOR

MANNING AUTHORIZED

CONTRACT/DELIVERY ORDER NUMBER

MANNING ASSIGNED

WORK LOCATION:

Patuxent River Naval Station

FOR THE MONTH/YEAR OF:

Maintenance Officer EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

OUTSTANDING SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY

Competency in performing contract technical requirements? * How would you rate the contractor’s overall performance? *

YES NO

Is manning compatible in number and skills to meet contract requirements? * Are there any instances of loss, damage or destroyed Government property? * Have there been any significant changes in Government property (i.e. quantity, hazardous, etc.)? * Are there any items determined to be excess by the contractor requiring disposition? * Are there any issues/questions concerning any property in the contractor’s possession? *

QUALITY ASSURANCE OFFICER EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

OUTSTANDING SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY

How would you rate the contractor’s documented Quality Procedures (Standard Operating Procedures, Local Quality Procedures)? * How would you rate the contractor’s compliance to their procedures (Quality System)? *

INSPECTIONS NUMBER PERFORMED ACCEPTED REJECTED

Safety of Flight *0 Mandatory Inspections (Required by TO’s, TM’s, etc. – a final inspection is usually mandatory) *0

Number of deficiencies (CARs/PQDRs) noted/issued during this period?

As per enclosure one of the QASP, the contractor was graded on the following metrics.

PERCENTAGE GRADE

Monthly Ready for Tasking rating 100% Aircraft paint and final finish Maintain Security clearances Maintain and conduct quality programs /process to ensure safe flyable aircraft

Enclosure (4)

Typed or printed name and phone number of Quality Assurance Officer (QAO) Phone

Date

Signature of Quality Assurance officer(QAO)

E-Mail address

Typed or printed name and phone number of Maintenance Officer (MO) Phone

Date

Signature of Maintenance Officer (MO)

E-Mail address :

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY