QASP_Final_CACT C40A Maint.doc

CACT C-40A MAINTENACE TRAINING RECOMPETE

MOPAS 2 REPORT

ATTACHMENT (1)

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. Purpose This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a standard of surveillance for monitoring the Command Aircraft Crew Training (CACT) C-40A Maintenance Training contract and provides the approach the Government will use to conduct surveillance over the performance aspects of the effort. The QASP is used by Government Quality Assurance (QA) personnel to ensure the standards of the contract are met. The QAs consist of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the Model Manager (MM) who monitors tasks issued under this requirement. The period of performance for this contract is comprised of a 20-month base period, followed by three (3) consecutive twelve-month option periods, and concluding with a four-month option period, for a total of 60 months. The Government has the unilateral right to exercise each option.

This plan uses quality metrics to evaluate the services the contractor is required to perform. This surveillance assures the Government that the contractor’s performance is acceptable.

Any noncompliance with the contract performance requirements is deemed “sub par.” The term “sub par” refers to required services that do not meet the specified standard of performance. The QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract.

The methods of surveillance recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable problems and issues do occur. The QAs are expected to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating contractor performance against the standards.

Effective management and use of the contractor’s established commercial quality control program will allow the contractor to operate within the specified surveillance requirements.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under FAR Part 46.4 Government Contract Quality Assurance under contract section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in task orders, 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 Program 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 and follow-on task orders. The contractor shall use an established commercial quality control program to ensure compliance with the contract.

The QASP on the other hand, is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the contractor’s quality control efforts to assure that they are timely, effective and are delivering the results specified in the contract or task 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 2.5.4.3.1. 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.

C-40 Maintenance Class Desk – An active duty pilot/type commander, appointed by his/her chain of command to ensure the quality and success of training.

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 interest of the United States in the contractual relationship. It is the Contracting Officer that ensures 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 ensures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. 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.

C-40 Maintenance Class Desk – The Maintenance Class Desk is responsible for regular surveillance of the contractor’s effort with regard to compliance with NATOPS and training course performance. The Maintenance Class Desk reports all surveillance findings to the COR.

6. Method of QA Surveillance For all courses, the outcome to be achieved is a successfully trained student. Performance success is measured against standards established by:

· Air Transport Association Specification 104 Guidelines and Standards

· Navy Standard Operating Manuals and Supplemental Procedures

· Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS)

The QAs will inspect performance by:

· Observing actual performance

· The participation in the class as a student and in doing so, performing observations

· Reviewing student post-training evaluation forms

In all cases, surveillance shall not be so intrusive as to impact the contractor’s successful accomplishment of the mission.

6.1 Observation/Inspection

Surveillance observations/inspections made by QAs will be recorded in order to document the contractor’s performance. This documentation becomes an official Government record of the contractor’s performance. The QASP Surveillance Performance Matrix delineates the elements by which performance will be measured.

6.2 Customer Feedback

Customer complaints – course evaluation forms are provided at the end of formal training sessions and students are expected to complete and submit those forms. The three (3) elements under student evaluation are:

· Major aspects of Avionics/Airframe/Powerplant/Electrical Systems maintenance training

· Major aspects of Avionics/Airframe/Powerplant/Electrical Systems mobile maintenance training

· Major aspects of Air Rigging maintenance training

Also included in the evaluation form is the ability for the student to provide additional comments. Should the QA receive customer complaints claiming poor quality training services, the QA will make a determination whether the complaint is minor or major in nature. The QA will notify the contractor of the nature and severity of the complaint.

· Minor complaints – isolated incidents of minor complaints will be addressed by the QA at the course performance level. The COR will be notified of the complaint and the contractor will cooperate with the QA to ensure the complaint is addressed or resolved. If the QA determines that a pattern of minor complaints has been established, or if there is a rapid increase in the frequency of minor complaints, the QA may determine the pattern to constitute a complaint level of “major.”

· Major complaints – Whenever the QA documents a complaint determined to be major, the COR shall be notified immediately. Upon such notification, the COR will make a determination concerning the validity of the complaint(s) and will notify the contractor of that determination. The contractor will be required to resolve all major complaints, determined to be valid by the COR, in a timely manner. Major complaints not resolved by the contractor in a timely manner will be considered “unacceptable performance” and will be referred to the PCO.

Results of any course evaluation feedback forms will be used as part of the surveillance plan for training services and data from these forms will be documented as part of the QA surveillance records.

7. Unacceptable Performance

When surveillance detects unacceptable training services, the contractor shall be notified. If the training services can be re-performed, the PCO will request the contractor to reschedule the training at no additional cost to the Government. If the training cannot be or is not successfully re-performed, the deficiency will be considered “sub par” performance. When “sub par” performance cannot be corrected by re-performance or corrective measures, the Government may:

· Require the contractor to take action necessary to ensure future performance conforms to contract requirements

· Issue Cure Notice

· Issue Show Cause

· Terminate the contract for cause

Note: Regardless of the degree of sub-par performance documented, the Government maintains the right to decline the exercising of any option whenever it is determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

8. QASP Surveillance Performance Matrix

Method/Measure Incentives

Level II or higher

Fail – Contract Terminated for Cause

Maintain NATOPS, Navy Standard Operating/ Supplemental Procedures Standards NATOPS and Navy Standard Operating Manuals and Supplemental Procedures

Fail – Correction of “sub par” Performance(*)

Course Evaluation Form Element – Avionics/Airframe/Powerplant/ Electrical Systems maintenance training

Unsatisfactory (1 through 2) – Model Manager reviews performance pattern with possibility of correction of “sub par” performance(*)

Course Evaluation Form Element – Avionics/Airframe/Powerplant/ Electrical Systems Mobile maintenance training

Unsatisfactory (1 through 2) – Model Manager reviews performance pattern with possibility of correction of “sub par” performance(*)

Unsatisfactory (1 through 2) – Model Manager reviews performance pattern with possibility of correction of “sub par” performance(*)

(*) The Government will not exercise an option unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor is rated Satisfactory or better; or takes corrective measures as cited in paragraph # 7 above.