J-2_Sec_J_Attachment_2_QASP_Rev1.pdf

N00421-19-R-0011 Attachment 1

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

For Contracted Air Services (CAS)

Fighter Jet 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.

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Program Manager Air (PMA) 226 Specialized and Proven Aircraft Program Office, Contracted Air Services (CAS) Integrated Product Team (IPT) has a requirement for Fighter Jet Services to provide Contractor Owned Contractor Operated (COCO) aircraft to the Department of the Navy (DoN) and United States Marine Corp (USMC) Fleet customers and other Department of Defense (DoD) agencies.

The resultant contract vehicle anticipated for this effort is a performance-based, Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Single Award, Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) type contract. The contract will have a four-year, 364-day 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 Fleet Fighter Jet Services Misson/Performance Standards, Data

Performance Standards, and Contractor Incentives. Enclosure (4) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document, on a monthly basis, the results of surveillance, which 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) – Fighter Jet Services Mission/Performance Standards Enclosure (2) - CDRL Data Performance Standards Enclosure (3) - Incentives Enclosure (4) – Fighter Jet Services Activity Checklist

FIGHTER JET SERVICES

MISSION/PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

PBWS Task Description

Performance Standards Required and Tied to

CPARS Ratings

Surveillance Method/Measure

Incentives

Aircraft Certification and Operational Mission Requirements and Qualified Personnel:

Provide Fighter Jet Services Contracted Air Support in support of USN Fleet and other DoD customers utilizing aircraft which meet the performance requirements within the

PBWS.

Metric 1 Provide the prescribed aircraft and required crew & payload 95% of the time to be mission effective.

95% = 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 PBWS 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.

Maintain Accountability of Government Furnished Property (GFP) IAW the PBWS and DI- MGMT- 80441C

Metric 2 Contractor shall account for 100% of GFP. Reports shall be submitted semi- annually and in compliance with Dl-MGMT- 80441C.

100% = Satisfactory <100% = Unsatisfactory

Government- performed random on-site physical audits combined with 100% inspection by COR of customer GFP reports submitted per DI-MGNT-804441C of Contractor assigned GFP against the contract master list of assigned

GFP.

Example:

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

Enclosure (1)

N00421-19-R-00011 Attachment #2

Safety Program Compliance:

Maintain an Aviation Safety and Mishap Prevention Program in accordance with the PBWS and

DCMA INST

8210.1C.

Metric 3

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 number of days in the reporting cycle where an incident occurred and subtract that total from the total number of days in the CPARS cycle (example: 365 – 5 = 360)...then divide that number by total number of days in the CPARS cycle to derive percentage (example 360/365 = 98.6%).

Fuel Accountability Compliance in accordance with the

PBWS.

Metric 4 Contractor shall maintain accurate fuel consumption tracking between fuel (AIR) cards, fuel receipts, flight logs, and fuel receipts, with a goal of 100% accurate tracking and a Satisfactory metric of 95%.

100% = Exceptional 97% = Very Good 95% = Satisfactory 90% = Marginal <90% = Unsatisfactory

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Provide evidence that the fuel (AIR) 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

PBWS/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

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-

Status of 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 12 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* (+) 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 3*

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

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition - Receives a negative final assessment (CPARS), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

*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)

FIGHTER JET SERVICES

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 and in Enclosures 1&

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback

TBD

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback

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 (3) 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)