Attachment_VII_QASP_-_SIP_-_2016.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Military Sealift Command

SHIP INSPECTION PROGRAM

1. Purpose. In support of MSC, this contract will primarily provide shipboard material readiness inspection, testing and survey services to the Engineering Directorate, Ship Inspection Branch, of MSC and other Government agencies as required. Additional engineering, technical, safety assessment, systems development and specialized services may be required on an occasional, as-needed, basis in support of overall shipboard material readiness.

1.1. The purpose of this contract is to obtain engineering services from a single Contractor to support MSC in the areas of marine surveys, material condition surveys and inspections, safety surveys and investigations, technical engineering analysis, root cause analysis, test plan development and refinement, technical and administrative support for future SIP development, and administrative support for tests, surveys, and inspection reports.

1.2. The Contractor shall provide engineering and technical services for accomplishing marine surveys, material condition surveys and inspections, safety surveys and investigations, technical engineering analysis, root cause analysis, test plan development and refinement, technical and administrative support for future SIP development, and administrative support for tests, surveys and inspection reports. The general disciplines in which the Contractor might be tasked to perform are listed below. Specific task descriptions and instructions, sufficient in detail to allow for Contractor performance, shall be provided with each Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS) issued under this contract.

1.2.1. Marine and Mechanical Engineering. The Contractor may be required to perform marine surveys, studies, analysis, ship-checks, and technical reports for material readiness efforts on marine and mechanical engineering systems. The expertise includes, but is not limited to, the following areas:

· Fluid systems analysis

· Main propulsion system analysis – diesel, steam, and gas turbine

· Auxiliary systems analysis

· HVAC system analysis

· Control and instrumentation systems analysis

· Monitoring systems analysis

· Deck machinery analysis

· Other specialized marine engineering functions

1.2.2. Electrical and Electronic Engineering. The Contractor may be required to perform surveys, studies, analysis, ship-checks, and technical reports for material readiness on electrical and electronic engineering systems. The expertise includes, but is not limited to, the following areas:

· Power generating systems analysis

· Power distribution systems analysis

· Control systems (electrical and electronic)

· Monitoring systems

· Navigation systems

· Communications systems

· Other specialized electrical engineering functions

1.2.3. Naval Architecture. The Contractor may be required to perform surveys, studies, analysis, ship-checks, and technical reports for material readiness on naval architecture systems. The expertise includes, but is not limited to, the following areas:

· Structural analysis

· Cargo handling systems

· Weight and Moment Reports and Calculations

· Stability Calculations

· Inclining Experiment Calculations

· Mooring Studies

· Other specialized naval architecture functions

1.2.4. Shipboard Testing and Inspection Surveys. The Contractor may be required to provide technical management, administrative, technical services, and troubleshooting of equipment in connection with test and inspections onboard MSC ships. The Contractor may be required to obtain test documentation, provide test equipment/data collectors, and research/retrieve applicable technical documentation. The Contractor may be required to act as an inspector or observer of shipboard tests and inspections. The Contractor may be required to execute, but not limited to, the following types of Inspection and Test Surveys:

· Ship Material Assessment and Readiness Testing

· Thermographic Analysis Surveys

· Onboard Condition Inspection (OCI) Surveys

· Material Readiness Evaluations

· Hull and Structural Survey

· Machinery Survey

· Outyears Engineering Requirements Assessment (OERA)

· Root Cause Analysis Investigations

Machinery Surveys may include inspection and survey all piping, duct work, vents, foundations, deckplates, hangers, electrical power cabling and instrumentation and control wiring for integrity, deterioration and, when applicable, adequate preservation. Thermographic analysis surveys may include all electrical group controllers, power panels, lighting panels, switchboards and all thermal insulated surfaces, Megger checks on all motors and generators, time vs. resistance, Di-Electric Absorption Ratio (DAR), and Polarization Index (PI) test readings on all new or reconditioned motors and generators. Testing of equipment may be required to include, but not be limited to vibration, ultrasonic, thermographic, electronic combustion analysis and other analysis as deemed appropriate by the Government. Equipment to be tested includes, but is not limited to all boilers, turbines, pumps, condensers, heat exchangers, compressors, fans, electric motors and generators, diesel engines, capstans, winches, evaporators, pneumatic and electric control, and instrumentation systems.

1.2.5. Safety Surveys and Investigations. The Contractor may be required to perform non-personal safety analysis services, safety engineering, incident analysis, technical services, and shipboard safety system audit services to conduct studies, analysis, ship-checks, and technical reports for shipboard safety surveys and investigations. Expertise in Navy Safety Center, NAVOSH and OSHA, ISM, as well as USCG and SOLAS standards and requirements for shipboard safety shall be required to perform or assist in the conduct of safety surveys and investigations as tasked.

1.2.6. Test Plan Development and Maintenance. The Contractor may be required to perform the following for Test Plan development and Maintenance for MSC ships:

· Develop, execute, and maintain test plans for all equipment as directed. Including, but not limited to Material Readiness Evaluation (MRE) Test Plans and Shipboard Material Assessment and Readiness Training (SMART) Test Plans (See Attachment A-1 and Attachment A-2).

· Validate and update the test plans during initial execution of a test or inspection for each ship.

· Develop test procedures for each piece of equipment to demonstrate it performs as designed or identify any deviation from the design.

· Support development of the SIP, which will combine the present SMART and OCI inspections into a single, consistent material readiness evaluation and reporting tool for all MSC vessels.

Test procedures for major propulsion and auxiliary equipment shall conform to either Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) codes or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Performance Test Codes (PTC). All other equipment may be required to be tested in accordance with the Original Equipment Manufacturer’s (OEM) recommendations. When OEM’s recommendations do not address testing, the test procedure will be developed by the Contractor using acceptable engineering practice.

1.2.7. Engineering Testing and Analysis Services. The Contractor may be required to perform the following for test execution and data analysis on MSC ships:

· Schedule and develop an agenda to implement a test plan or inspection of each ship.

· Calibrate and install all necessary instrumentation and controls required to test each piece of equipment. The Contractor is required to maintain calibration documentation for all test equipment used for tests and inspections on MSC ships.

· Test the equipment at or near rated operating conditions.

1.2.8. Test and Inspection Reports. In accordance with Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) A006 (Test and Acceptance Reports), the Contractor may be required to develop Test and Inspection Reports that contain:

· The completed test plan.

· All objective test data obtained during testing and inspection.

· The corresponding design data and conclusions as to the condition of the equipment.

· System or structure based on comparison of design data to actual data.

· Recommendations to correct any deficiencies.

· Machinery Efficiency Analysis Reports that calculate the efficiency of each major component in the main propulsion and auxiliary power cycles, using the data obtained during equipment testing including overall plant efficiency.

1.3. The quality assurance program is designed to ensure quality service is maintained to perform services throughout the life of the contract and these methods for improving the overall quality are also employed. This QASP describes the procedures the Government will use to monitor the service provider’s compliance with the requirements of the PWS. The QASP focuses on the quality, quantity, timeliness, etc. of the performance outputs to be delivered by the contractor, and not on the steps required or procedures used to provide the product or services.

2. Performance Standards. The QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate the service the Contractor is required to furnish. The COR with the assistance of the Technical Assistant (TA) will assess the Contractor’s performance to ensure the Contractor is performing up to the specified standards. The performance standards for this performance work statement are stated in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) included in this QASP. The standards are subjective for this requirement.

3. Management and Oversight. The Government will conduct systematic surveillance of all aspects of this contract to ensure all requirements of the performance work statement (PWS) are satisfactorily fulfilled. However, the Government’s quality assurance program is not a substitute for the contractor’s quality control program. The QASP is based on the premise that the Contractor and not the Government, is responsible for the management and any Quality Control action required to meet the terms of the contract. The Government expects the contractor to detect and correct deficiencies before products and services are delivered to customers, as specified in the contractor’s approved quality control plan.

The Government will rely on the contractor’s quality control program, which shall be part of its proposal. The plan shall discuss the contractor’s overall approach and procedures for evaluating each of the major service areas contained in the performance work statement (PWS), communicating with the Government, resolving deficiencies, and identifying potential improvements. The plan shall also discuss contingency intentions to ensure uninterrupted service is provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The performance requirements recognize that the Contractor is not a perfect manager and that unforeseen requirements and uncontrollable problems do occur. Good management and use of an adequate Quality Control Plan will allow the Contractor to operate within specific performance requirements. QASPs are designed to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating Contractor performance against the provided standards. The contractor’s quality control plan will be reviewed and approved prior to contract award.

4. Relationship of QASP to the Contract.

This QASP is not part of the solicitation nor will it be made part of any resulting contract. The Government will provide the successful offeror an information copy of the QASP to enable the offeror to enhance its quality control program that interrelates with the Government’s QASP. The Government will retain the right to change the surveillance methods and quality assurance procedures as well as to increase or decrease the degree of surveillance efforts at any time necessary to assure contract compliance.

5. Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs). AQLs have been established in the enclosed PRS and provide performance standards the Contractor will meet in performing the contract. In the event the Contractor does not meet the established AQLs, the contracting officer (KO) has the right to exercise the negative incentives stated in this QASP.

6. Primary Method of Surveillance/Evaluation. The COR or TA will perform evaluation based on using one or more of the various methods outline in the PRS Table included in this QASP. The following methods may be incorporated into the PRS to monitor contract performance:

- 100% inspection: Inspection where specific characteristics of every performance unit are examined and tested to determine conformance with requirements.

- Random inspection/Contract Discrepancy Inspections (CDI): Sampling method in which each unit of the population has an equal chance of being selected.

- Customer Surveys and Feedback: A review method where customers and end users are surveyed to provide input on specific service levels.

7. Performance Incentives. The following monetary and non-monetary incentives, besides costs, may be considered when evaluating contractor performance:

8. Substandard Performance. If any of the performance requirements do not meet the AQL set in the PRS table, the COR shall document the discrepancy(s) and shall notify the KO promptly. The KO will then take the appropriate action with the contractor to remedy the substandard performance. When the performance is below the AQL standard, the Government may initiate one or more of the following:

- Implement increased surveillance and/or Contractor reporting

- Adverse performance documentation in the Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

- Contract Length Considerations (not exercising options)

9. Notification. The TA will notify the COR, in writing, of unacceptable quality levels. The COR will notify the KO in writing. The KO will promptly provide written notification of discrepancies on a monthly basis, or immediately if the situation significantly affects the well-being of the project. The Contractor will be given the opportunity to respond, in writing, to each discrepancy.

10. Response. The Contractor shall provide a written response to the cause and the corrective action to prevent recurrence within 10 working days after receipt of KO’s notification. The Contractor should cite specific quality assurance program procedures or new procedures instituted to prevent recurrence.

11. Records. The COR or designated TA will maintain contract surveillance files as directed by the KO. Surveillance files will include, as a minimum, the following documentation for this contract:

a. COR designation and appointment letters.

b. A copy of the contract and all contract modifications.

c. QASP, Quality Control Plan, and any other monitoring tools, checklists, etc.

d. All correspondence including KO notifications and the Contractor’s response.

e. Contractor reports and meeting minutes

f. Monthly evidence of satisfactory performance

g. Surveillance reports and a summary of the surveillance logs prepared by the COR submitted to the KO annually.

h. Copies of deficiency reports that may be submitted in support of unacceptable performance identified during the performance period by the COR, or when there is a significant change in the assessment in one or more evaluation areas.

i. Annual in-progress reviews conducted and entered into CPARS.

12. Ratings. The following criteria will be used for performance evaluations: Exceptional, Very Good, Good, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory. Upward or downward arrows may be used to indicate an improving or worsening trend insufficient to change to the assessment status.

a. Exceptional. Indicates performance clearly exceeds contractual requirements. There were no problems requiring corrective action.

b. 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.

c. Good. Indicates performance clearly meets contractual requirements. The area of evaluation contains some minor problems for which the corrective actions appear satisfactory.

d. Marginal. Indicates performance meets contractual requirements. The area of evaluation contains one or more serious problems for which corrective actions have not yet been identified, appear only marginally effective, or have not been fully implemented.

e. Unsatisfactory. Indicates the contractor is in danger of not being able to satisfy contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The area of evaluation contains one or more serious problems for which the corrective actions appear ineffective.

13. Documentation. Documentation used and referenced to perform surveillance will consist of monthly reports, contractor plans and procedures, schedules, customer feedback and contract data requirements.

a. Recording Observations. Use Surveillance Logs to record information on scheduled observations and deficiencies noted. Each observation is recorded on the log. The documents then become a formal record for reference. The Contractor is to be notified each time a deficiency is found during scheduled observations. The TA makes a notation on the Surveillance Log of the date and time the deficiency was discovered. Then, the COR asks a contractor task leader to initial the notation, documenting notification of the deficiency only.

b. Potential Unacceptable Performance. The COR must identify the specific service that is unacceptable and the possible causes, and ask a number of questions which if answered, will likely pinpoint the source of the problem.

c. Documenting Unacceptable Performance. The COR must attempt to resolve the problem with the contractor. The original log and the attempted solution (along with an evaluation of results) are forwarded to the KO through the COR.

Based on the severity of the discrepancy and the success of the solution, the COR will notify the KO. The Contractor shall complete a response to the unacceptable evolution if requested by the Contracting Officer or by its own choice.

14. Taking Action.

a. The COR may evaluate the contractor’s performance and document any non-compliance, and report it to the KO. Action may be taken against the contractor for an unacceptable rating.

b. When the contractor’s performance is unacceptable and a formal action is indicated, the COR will determine what action is appropriate for the specific circumstances and make a recommendation to the KO.

15. Documentation. The COR retains a copy of all inspection schedules and surveillance activity logs during the course of the contract, and forwards them for inclusion in the contract file at the end of the surveillance period. However, when a specific service becomes unsatisfactory during a surveillance period, the inspection documentation supporting the contract discrepancy report is forwarded to the KO.

16. Performance Requirements Summary (PRS). The performance standards for this PWS are stated in the PRS Below: