N0042123R0064_Attachment_2_QASP.pdf

Attachment (2) N0042123R0064

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) For

Contracted Air Services Fighter Jet Services (FJS)

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

The anticipated contract vehicle 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 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 NAWC-AD Procurement Group. 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. 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 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.

COR/ACOR – The COR/ACOR 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 the services, schedule, management, 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 and 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 8210.1D, Chapter 7

(NAVAIRINST 3710.1G).

PM/CAS IPTL – The PM provides primary program oversight, nominates the COR, and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities. The PM for this contract is PMA-226. - 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.

6. Methods of Quality Assurance Surveillance

Contractor Performance Assessment Report 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 rating under this contract. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed annually inclusive of all task orders awarded during the applicable annual rating period. This evaluation will be one determinant in the continuation of issuing task orders under this contract. The government will address the quality of the services, schedule, management, and other important areas for this procurement. 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.

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 quality assurance surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC) provided as Enclosure (4) herein.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1), (2), and (3) set forth the FJS mission/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 the surveillance, which shall be provided to the Contracting Officer on a quarterly basis.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing monthly reports to the Contracting Officer, the COR will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file within the Surveillance and Performance Module (SPM). 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) - Mission/Performance Standards Enclosure (2) - Data Performance Standards Enclosure (3) - Incentives Enclosure (4) - Surveillance Activity Checklist Enclosure (5) - Contract Discrepancy Report

Enclosure (1)

FIGHTER JET SERVICES

MISSION/PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

PBWS Task Description

Performance Standards Required and Tied to CPAR

Ratings

Surveillance Method/Measure

Incentives

Aircraft Certification and Operational Mission Requirements and Qualified Personnel: Provide Fighter Jet Services 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.

9 5 % = Exceptional 90% = Very Good 85% = Satisfactory 80% = Marginal <80% = Unsatisfactory

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Mission Effectiveness is the total sorties flown in which the aircraft’s capabilities function as required by the PBWS 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.

Maintain Accountability of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) IAW the PBWS and DI-MGMT- 81947B

Metric 2 Contractor shall account for 100% of GFP. Reports shall be submitted semi- annually and in compliance with Dl-MGMT-81947B.

100% = Satisfactory <100% = Unsatisfactory

Government performed random on-site physical audits combined with 100% inspection by COR of customer GFE reports submitted per DI-MGNT-80269 of Contractor assigned GFE against the contract master list of assigned GFR.

Example:

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

Safety Program Compliance:

Establish, Maintain and Comply with GFR approved flight and ground operating procedures and an Aviation Safety and Mishap Prevention Program in accordance with the PBWS and DCMA INST 8210.1D.

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

100.0% Inspection by GFR. DCMAINST 8210.1D Change 1 compliance inspection will be conducted by the GFR on a semiannual basis.

A score will be derived based on the total number of compliant responses versus the total number of questions in the applicable audit checklist.

Fuel Accountability Compliance (fuel consumption report) in accordance with the

PBWS.

Metric 4 Contractor shall maintain 95.0% accurate fuel consumption tracking between fuel cards/fuel receipts, flight logs and fuel receipts, with a goal of 100.0% accurate tracking.

98.0 – 100.0% = Exceptional

97.0 – 97.99% = Very Good

95.0 – 96.99% = Satisfactory

90.0 – 94.99% = Marginal <90.0% = Unsatisfactory

100.0% 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.

Capability Stand Up in accordance with the

PBWS.

Metric 5

The contractor shall complete a Capability Stand Up period, which consists of all the applicable elements identified in PBWS Section 3.5.

Contractor goal is to complete Capability Stand Up no later than the number of months identified in the awarded contract PBWS Section 3.5.

Award PBWS 3.5 required # of months or earlier from contract award = Satisfactory

Greater than award PBWS 3.5 required # of months = Unsatisfactory

100.0% Inspection by COR.

Compliance checks with PBWS 3.5 will be conducted by the COR on a continual basis during the Capability Stand Up period. A rating will be derived based on the total number of months the contractor utilizes to complete the applicable elements of PBWS Section 3.5, Capability Stand Up. A score of Satisfactory will be assigned for completion of Capability Stand Up that occurs on or before the timeline specified in the PBWS. A score of Unsatisfactory will be assigned for completion of Capability Stand Up greater than the time specified in the PBWS.

See enclosure 3.

Enclosure (2)

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 -

Contractor's 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 -

Contractor/Contract Fuel Chit Reports

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 cited in the CDRL

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

100% Inspection by COR and/or technical points of contacts as indicated on CDRL

See enclosure 3.

CDRL A005 -

Government Furnished Material (GFM) Inventory Report 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

CDRL A007 - Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) 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.

Enclosure (3)

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 (12thtjh 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 (CPAR), 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 (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

Year 2 measurement 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 (CPAR), 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 measurement 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 (CPAR), 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 measurement 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 (CPAR), 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 measurement areas rated** "Satisfactory" or above.

Annual assessment period (60th month into contract period) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

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

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

* The government reserves the right to not issue additional task orders unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor meets at least the “satisfactory” rating levels for the performance metrics identified in this QASP.

**Evaluation Ratings will be IAW FAR 42.1503.

All PBWS/CDRL tasks, including PBWS/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.

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 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 =

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

Annual Surveillance:

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

Description Surveillance Method/

Measure Date Planned Date Completed Summary

Rating Results

Quality of Product or Service

Review of Monthly Ratings.

Metric = CPAR ratings

Schedule

Ratings.

Cost Control

Management Responsiveness

Utilization of Small Business Concerns

(Yes/No)

Other Areas

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 Representative Date