Attachment 3 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.pdf

RFP# N00421-21-R-0077

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

For the Technical Support Services for

Contracted Air Services Hawaii (CASHI)

-Helicopter support

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.

The contract required is for Contracted Air Services (CAS), including providing helicopters in support of the Range at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in Kauai, Hawaii. Tasking associated with this requirement will include target recovery, visual surveillance, range clearing, transport personnel and/or equipment to/from ship or shore facilities, target launch, and firefighting, if required. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

The resulting contract will be under Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD)

Procurement Group. The Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) service support contract will have Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs for aircraft readiness, medium lift services and heavy lift services, and cost-reimbursable CLINS for travel, material/shipping and aircraft modifications.

The contract will consist of four (4) years and 364 days ordering period. The Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract that extend past the ordering period of this contract. 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

N00421-20-R-0142

Attachment 1

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

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 assure 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 administer Administrative Contracting Officer

(ACO) for Contracts is authorized to make determination and findings on behalf of the

Government. The PCO for this contract is Michael Coon. 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 contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Government Flight Representative (GFR) – A United States (US) Military Officer or similarly qualified civilian with the responsibility for oversight of public aircraft operations conducted by commercial contractors.

Program Manager (PM)/CAS Integrated Product Team Lead (IPTL) – As part of PMA-226, the PM manages and supports specialized and proven aircraft platforms & systems to include

CAS acquisition, PAO Declaration and Airworthiness.

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.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

COR/ACOR – 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/ACOR will also submit an annual assessment in the Navy’s

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

GFR – The GFR is responsible for surveillance of Contractor ground operations involving CAS aircraft. GFR duties and responsibilities are described in DCMA INST 8210.1C, Chapter 7

(NAVAIRINST 3710.1G).

PM/CAS 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, which includes designating the Scheduling Officers to execute administrative tasks such as mission scheduling, coordination, prioritization of CAS and invoice inspection. The PM for this contract is PMA-226.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS rating under this contract. CPARS reports will impact the contractor’s ability to successfully compete on future DoD Helicopter CAS requirements. Additionally, the CPARS ratings will be the determinant in exercising an option or award term. For this procurement the Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, management responsiveness, 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 CPARS evaluation will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP.

b. QASP - 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 provided as Enclosure (4) herein.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1), (2), and (3) sets forth the performance standards, incentives, data performance and incentives for the contractor and COR while enclosure (4) provided the surveillance activity checklist and means for the COR to document on a monthly basis the results of the surveillance.

Enclosure (4) will be provided to the Contracting Officer on a quarterly basis.

8. Documentation

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

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.

When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file.

When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a

Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and present it to the contractor's task manager or on-site representative. A CDR template is attached to this QASP enclosure (5).

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR will specify if the contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CDR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the COR. The

Government will review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability.

The COR may initiate a CDR at any time, including whenever the number of monthly recorded defects for a performance standard exceeds the allowable number of defects; anytime unacceptable performance is determined critical in nature and requires formal corrective action;

and, whenever an unfavorable trend is detected in contractor performance.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) – Helicopter retrieving targets Performance Based Standards

Enclosure (2) - Data Performance Standards

Enclosure (3) - Incentives

Enclosure (4) - Surveillance Activity Checklist

Enclosure (5) – Contract Discrepancy Report

N00421-21-R-0077

Attachment (1)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Enclosure (1)

CONTRACTED AIR SERVICES HAWAII (CASHI)

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Performance Work

Statement (PWS) Task

Description

Reference

Paragraph(s)

Performance Standards

Required and Tied to

CPAR Ratings

Surveillance Method/Measure

Incentives

Provide Medium and Heavy

Lift Helicopter Services

(flight minutes) which meet requirements within the PWS

3.1 Metric 1

Provide the prescribed aircraft and required crew

85% of the time to be mission effective.

95 - 100% = Exceptional

90 – 94.99% = Very Good

85 – 89.99% = Satisfactory

80 – 84.99% = Marginal

<80% = Unsatisfactory

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Mission Effectiveness is the total sorties flown in which the aircraft functions as required by the

PWS and in accordance with scheduled flights prescribed by Scheduling Officer (SO) 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.

Contractor to maintain

Government Furnished

Property (GFP) accountability IAW DI-

MGMT-81947B

1.0

3.1.1.2

3.1.1.5

3.1.2.2

3.1.2.5

3.1.2.6

3.1.2.7

3.1.3.1

3.1.3.2

3.1.4.2

3.2

3.9

3.10

5.0

5.1

5.2

7.9

8.0 CDRL

A006

Metric 2

Contractor shall account for all GFP with a goal of 100% accuracy and a Satisfactory metric of 95%. Reports shall be submitted in accordance with CDRL A007.

98 - 100% = Exceptional

97 – 97.99% = Very Good

95 – 96.99% = Satisfactory

90 – 94.99% = Marginal

<90% = Unsatisfactory

Government performed random on-site physical audits combined with 100% inspection by COR of GFP reports submitted per CDRL A007 of

Contractor assigned GFP against the contract master list of assigned GFR.

Example:

Take total number of GFP items issued from the

Government to the Contractor compared to the

1149 list and complete reports submitted. And/or

Take total GFP items accounted for during physical audit and divide by total GFP issued by Government to derive percentage (299/300 = 99.7%)

See

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Safety program compliance 3.3.3

3.3.3.1

3.5.1.4

3.5.3

3.5.3.1

3.5.3.2

3.5.3.3

3.7.1

3.8

3.11

4.2

4.3

Metric 3

Contractor shall maintain compliance with all safety requirements by category:

1. Aircraft air & ground mishaps

2. Compliance with hazmat policy.

3. Compliance with GOPs and FOPs.

Contractor goal is 100% compliance with a

Satisfactory metric of 97%

99 - 100% = Exceptional

98 – 98.99% = Very Good

97 – 97.99% = Satisfactory

96 – 96.99% = Marginal

<96% = 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 CPAR cycle...then divide that number by total number of days in the CPAR cycle to derive percentage (360/365 = 98.6%).

Sec

Fuel accountability compliance (fuel consumption report) and receipts

3.5.2

3.5.2.1

3.5.5

8.0 CDRL

A004

Metric 4

Contractor shall maintain 95% accurate fuel consumption tracking between fuel cards/fuel receipts and flight logs, with a goal of 100% accurate tracking. Discrepant data is that which requires the

CAS Fuel Manager to contact the contractor for correction.

98 - 100% = Exceptional

97 – 97.99% = Very Good

95 – 96.99% = Satisfactory

90 – 94.99% = Marginal

<90% = Unsatisfactory

100% Inspection by CAS Fuel Analyst, 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 & flight log. Perform sample audit each month of transaction IAW

MIL-STD-105E. Divide the total number of errant fuel transactions by the total number of fuel transactions in the CPAR cycle to derive a percentage.

See enclosure 3.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Enclosure (2)

DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

PWS/CDRL Task

Description Standard AQL Surveillance

Method/

Measure

Incentives

Airworthiness and Related

Substantiation Data (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 / Standard

Operating Procedures (A002)

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

Operations Security

(OPSEC) Plan (A003)

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

Fuel Chit Report / Fuel

Tracking Report (A004)

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

Contractor’s Progress, Status and Management

Report (A005)

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

Status of Government Furnished Property

(A006)

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

Contractor’s Flight Schedule

(A007)

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

Integrated Master Schedule

(A008)

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

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Enclosure (3)

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this order.

Assessment Period Acceptable Performance

Definition

How Measured Incentives

Base Year 1

All measurement areas rated** "Satisfactory" or above.

Annual assessment period

(12 months into contract period) evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuing new task order(s) in year 2.* (+) Receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuing new task order(s) for second year ordering period.*

(-)Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), Base Year 2 rated** "Satisfactory" or above.

Annual assessment period

(24 months into contract period) evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 24 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuing new task order(s) in year 2.* (+) Receives a positive assessment (CPAR), definition as a condition for issuing new task order(s) for second year ordering period.*

(-)Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), Base Year 3 rated** "Satisfactory" or above.

Annual assessment period

(36 months into contract period) evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 36 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuing new task order(s) in year 2.* (+) Receives a positive assessment (CPAR), definition as a condition for issuing new task order(s) for second year ordering period.*

(-)Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), Base Year 4 rated** "Satisfactory" or above.

Annual assessment period

(48 months into contract period) evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 48 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuing new task order(s) in year 2.* (+) Receives a positive assessment (CPAR), SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

definition as a condition for issuing new task order(s) for second year ordering period.*

(-)Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), Base Year 5 rated** "Satisfactory" or above.

Annual assessment period

(60 months into contract period) evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 60 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for issuing new task order(s) in year 2.*

(+) Receives a positive assessment (CPAR), definition as a condition for issuing new task order(s) for second year ordering period.*

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

* The Government will not issue new 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.

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

Quality of the Services – 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.

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

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

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.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Enclosure (4)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

Monthly Surveillance Format Used:

The COR will perform an annual assessment of Quality, Schedule, Business Relations, Management Responsiveness, 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 =

CPAR

Mgmt.

Metric

CPAR

Utilization or Small Business (yes/no)

Other Areas

As described above in Enclosure 1& 2

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback

TBD

COR and customer feedback

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Monthly Summary of Ratings:

Quality of Service Schedule

Number of Exceptional ____ Number of Exceptional ____

Number of Very Good ____ Number of Very Good ____

Number of Satisfactory ____ Number of Satisfactory ____

Number of Marginal ____ Number of Marginal ____

Number of Unsatisfactory ____ Number of Unsatisfactory ____

Business Relations

Number of Exceptional ____

Number of Very Good ____

Number of Satisfactory ____

Number of Marginal ____

Number of Unsatisfactory ____

Management Other Areas

Number of Exceptional ____ Number of Exceptional ____

Number of Very Good ____ Number of Very Good ____

Number of Satisfactory ____ Number of Satisfactory ____

Number of Marginal ____ Number of Marginal ____

Number of Unsatisfactory ____ Number of Unsatisfactory ____

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 the Services

Review of Monthly Ratings.

Schedule

Review of Monthly Ratings.

Business Relations

Review of Monthly Ratings

Management

Other Areas

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Enclosure (5)

Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR)

1. Contract Number:

2. TO: (Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative)

3. FROM: (Name of COR)

4. Date and time observed discrepancy:

5. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM:

6. Corrective action plan:

A written corrective action plan (is/is not) required.

The written Corrective Action Plan will be provided to the undersigned not later than 7 days after receipt of this CDR.

Prepared by: COR

Signature – Contracting Officer’s Representative Date

Received by:

Signature - Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative Date