Att (3) Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan_2 Jul 2019.doc

QASP - Surface FF-DC COMS

N61340-19-R-XXXX

PWS # 66410-A-0452

2 Jul 2019 QASP - Surface FF-DC COMS

N61340-19-R-XXXX

PWS # 66410-A-0452

25 Jun 2019

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

for

Surface Fire Fighter and Damage Control Trainers Contractor Operation and Maintenance Services

(SurfCOMS) at

Surface Warfare Officer’s School (SWOS) Mayport, FL;

Surface Warfare Officer’s School (SWOS) Norfolk, VA;

Surface Warfare Officer’s School (SWOS) San Diego, CA;

Officer’s Training Command (OTC-N) Newport, RI;

Surface Warfare Officer’s School (SWOS) Pearl Harbor, VA;

Surface Warfare Officer’s School Unit (SWOSU), Great Lakes, IL;

Recruit Training Command (RTC), Great Lakes, IL

1. PURPOSE.

This Surface Fire Fighter and Damage Control (FF-DC) trainers Contractor Operation and Maintenance Services (Surf FF-DC COMS) Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the Surf FF-DC COMS contract. This QASP explains the following:

· What will be monitored.

· How monitoring will take place;

· Who will conduct the monitoring; and

· How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.

This QASP does not detail how the Contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the Contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the Government recognizes that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.

This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. However, the Government will coordinate changes with the Contractor. Updates will ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions will be provided to the Contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

The 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 required by the contracts to be executed by the Contracting Officer, or a duly authorized representative.

2. Government Roles and Responsibilities.

The below listed personnel will oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

a. Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist - The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and Contract Specialist (CS) will ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and will safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The PCO and CS will also assure that the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The PCO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

b. Project Manager (PjM) - The PjM is responsible for planning, organizing, and managing resources to bring about the successful completion of the specific Surf FF-DC COMS goals and objectives of the contract. The PjM is also responsible for submitting Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) assessments as appropriate and maintaining contract files and documentation.

c. 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 task orders. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

The COR is an individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative to assist in technical administration of the contract and conduct Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR will work with the Contractor to resolve any issues which are not satisfactorily resolved by the Contractor’s local site manager/lead(s). The COR shall maintain contract records using the Surveillance and Performance Monitoring (SPM) Module. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. The Contractor shall refer any changes they deem may affect contract price, terms, or conditions to the PCO/CS for action.

d. Logistics Manager (LM) – The LM performs Life-Cycle Sustainment support to the training systems and is responsible for assisting the PjM to ensure successful completion of Surf FF-DC COMS goals and objectives of the contract. The LM is also responsible for verifying and accepting Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) invoices,

3. Performance Standards.

Performance standards define desired services. The Government performs surveillance to determine if the Contractor meets or does not meet these standards.

The QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate the service the Contractor is required to furnish. The COR 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 (PWS) are stated in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) included in this QASP.

The Government will use these standards to determine Contractor performance and will compare Contractor performance to the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL). The Government COR will document Contractor performance as stated in paragraph 7 herein.

4. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY (PRS).

The performance standards for this PWS are shown below:

Accepted Quality Level (AQL) Surveillance Methods and Inspections

CDRLs Deliverables:

A001 Contract Funding Status Report A002 Conference and Meeting Minutes

A003 Mobilization COMS Contractor Performance Summary Report

A004 Contractor Operation and Maintenance of Simulator/Equipment Management Status Report

A005 COMS Contractor Inventory /Utilization Report of GFP/GFI A006 Quality System Plan

a) CDRL CDRL submissions are submitted on time and accurate. This includes initial, revised, and updated submission.

AQL – Initial (draft) submissions shall be submitted on time and complete (AQL draft submission 95%).

Final submissions shall be submitted on time and correct (AQL 100%).

How: The Government will review all CDRL submissions, provide timely comment and accept final submissions.

Who: COR, PjM, LM, and other designated Government representatives.

Daily Operational Readiness Test (DORT) (PWS Part 4) Deliverables:

DORT conducted prior to first GSU and in accordance with all trainer documentation including PMS MRCs for DORT.

AQL – DORT done prior to the first GSU. AQL=100% AQL – All safety procedures and warnings shall be adhered to as delineated on all trainer documentation including PMS MRCs for DORT. AQL =100%.

AQL –MRCs used with conducting DORT. AQL=100%

How: Direct Observation and Validated User/Customer Feedback Who: COR, TA, Program IPT, and other designated Government representatives.

Maintenance (PWS Part 4) Deliverables:

Completion of Preventative Maintenance tasks.

Identification, documentation and reporting of malfunctions.

Monitoring of Corrective actions plans to return systems requiring corrective or depot level maintenance to FOC

AQL - Meets Ready For Training (RFT) Training Requirements.AQL=100% AQL - Maintains FOC of all systems through the scheduling of maintenance activities, maintenance stand-downs. AQL =95% AQL –Monthly operational Availability for each range or training system AQL is 95% or better.

AQL: PMS being accomplished IAW MRC’s and O&M Manuals. AQL=100%

AQL: PMS being accomplished IAW MRC’s and O&M Manuals. AQL=100% How: Direct Observation and Validated User/Customer Feedback Who: COR, TA, Program IPT, and other designated Government representatives.

HazMat/HazWaste

(PWS Part 4) Deliverables:

The Contractor shall be responsible for the proper handling, storage, disposal, transport and turn-in of hazardous material and regulated waste, according to applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

AQL: Contractor in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and requirements. AQL= 100% AQL: Is HazMat/HazWaste properly stored and labeled?, AQL= 100% AQL: Does all Contractor personnel handling hazmat have required training and certifications?, AQL= 95%

How: Direct Observation and Validated User/Customer Feedback Who: COR, TA, Program IPT, and other designated Government representatives.

Technical Documentation and Software

(PWS Part 4)

Deliverables:

Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining and complying with all technical documentation.

Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining all software media and firmware in an operable condition in the current and approved configuration.

AQL: Contractor complying with all technical documentation. AQL=100%

AQL: All documentation changes incorporated and approved in writing, AQL= 100-% AQL: All Government provided documentation and software maintained in good and usable condition and stored properly. AQL=95%

AQL: Latest version of software in use. AQL=100%

How: Direct Observation and Validated User/Customer Feedback Who: COR, TA, Program IPT, and other designated Government representatives.

SAFETY

(PWS Part 4) Deliverables:

The contractor provides a safe working environment at all sites and ensures necessary PPE and safety training to the workforce and is timely in submission of Mishap and Accident reports.

AQL: Safety procedures and standards being adhered to in accordance with all applicable regulations. AQL=100% AQL: Are Lockout/Tagout procedures being followed , AQL=100% AQL: Is PPE in good condition and being utilized, AQL=100%

How: Direct Observation and Validated User/Customer Feedback Who: COR, TA, Program IPT, and other designated Government representatives.

5. Methods of Surveillance.

Various methods exist to monitor performance. The Government will use the surveillance methods listed below in the administration of this QASP. Regardless of the surveillance method, the Government COR or other surveillance personnel will contact the Contractor's Site Manager or on-site representative when a defect is identified and inform the manager of the specifics of the problem. The COR, with input and assistance from the on-site Site Quality Assurance Managers, will be responsible for monitoring the Contractor’s performance in meeting a specific performance standard/AQL.

a. DIRECT OBSERVATION. This consists of inspections by the COR TA, Program IPT, or other assigned Government representative where specific characteristics of each Appendix are examined to determine conformance with requirements. (This can be performed periodically, random, or through 100% surveillance and inspections.) Inspection Checklists are provided within this QASP to assist in inspection of training systems and support equipment.

b. VALIDATED USER/CUSTOMER FEEDBACK. Review method where customers and end users are surveyed to provide input on specific service levels. Any negative feedback will be investigated and validated by the COR. A recommended format for User/Customer Feedback Record is attached to this QASP.

6. OPERATIONAL AVAILABILITY.

The Contractor is responsible for having the specified TS/E, facilities and trainer support gear ready for use prior to each available GSU whether scheduled or not to support the operational availability of 95%. The Contractor shall conduct an operational readiness test prior to each scheduled use to ensure TS/E is in a fully operational condition (as applicable). Known GSUs are reflected in the GSU schedule provided to the Contractor. For performance measurement purposes, any GSU rescheduled or substitute TS/E used is considered a new scheduled use. For performance measurement purposes, any GSU rescheduled is considered a new scheduled use, and the previously scheduled GSU is no longer considered a scheduled GSU. In the event a failed GSU is rescheduled on another TS/E, the original GSU for that TS/E would be considered not available or 0% Ao.

The contractor shall immediately notify the Government of any training system malfunction or deficiency that degrades the system training capability and document the deficiency and corrective action in CDRL A004.

7. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE.

a. ACCEPTABLE Performance.

The Government will document positive as well as unacceptable performance. A report template is attached. Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for this contract.

b. UNACCEPTABLE performance.

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

When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR will prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and provide it the Contractor's task manager or on-site representativeA CDR template is attached to this QASP.

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.

When performance falls below Satisfactory, the Government may implement increased surveillance and/or Contractor reporting, as well as, document the occurrence on the Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for a delay of the Contractor’s monthly payment, or other actions deemed necessary by the PCO until corrective action is taken.

8. RATINGS.

a. 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.

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. 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.

d. 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.

e. 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.

DATE:

BLDG:

ROOM(S):

INSPECTOR (PRINT):

MONTHLY:

RANDOM:

YES

UNSAT/

NO

JANITORIAL

Are floors/maintenance areas for COMS spaces swept and clean? This includes ladder wells within the trainer.

Are all consoles, desks, file cabinets, and workbenches in COMS spaces organized, clean, and safe?

Are all areas free of leaking fluid?

Are light fixtures clean with all bulbs installed and working?

Are lockers in COMS spaces clean with gear, publications and equipment properly stored?

Do trash containers show daily disposal with no trash stored in spaces?

Are the interiors of all cabinets, lockers and bookshelves in COMS spaces clean and free of debris?

Are Equipment labels readable?

Does equipment labels need repainting or replacement?

SAFETY

Are all tools/electrical equipment in good working order?

Is all test equipment in calibration?

Is all electrical safety PPE in good condition?

Is all overhead storage safe and secure?

Are shorting probes available?

Are applicable safety warnings and information posted and conspicuous?

REMARKS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* IAW PWS Paragraph 6.2; The Site Manager will be given 24 hours to correct discrepancies prior to a complete re-inspection of all items previously inspected.

Yes: ________________ No: _______________ (If No, provide reason in Remarks.)

Inspector Title/Print/Sign/Date: _______________________________________________________________

Site Lead Print/Sign/Date: _________________________ COR Print/Sign/Date: _______________________

ROOM:

BLDG:

DATE:

INSPECTOR (PRINT):

YES

UNSAT/

NO

Is all hazmat/ hazwaste properly labeled?

Is all hazmat/hazwaste properly stored?

Is all hazmat at or below authorized levels? Per local Authorized Usage List (AUL).

Are hazmat lockers clean & neat?

Does each hazmat locker have SDS’s for each stored material?

Is an accurate, dated inventory posted on each hazmat locker?

Is shelf-life for all items within date limitations?

Are only compatible materials stored in each hazmat locker?

Is an accurate inventory provided to the inspector upon request for forwarding to the command HM/HW coordinator?

Are all hazmat lockers clearly and properly labeled?

Are all hazmat lockers secured to limit access?

Does all Contractor personnel handling hazmat have required training and certifications?

REMARKS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* IAW PWS Paragraph 6.2; The Site Manager will be given 24 hours to correct discrepancies prior to a complete re-inspection of all items previously inspected.

Yes: ________________ No: _______________ (If No, provide reason in Remarks.)

Inspector Title/Print/Sign/Date: _______________________________________________________________

Site Lead Print/Sign/Date: _________________________ COR Print/Sign/Date: _______________________

ROOM:

BLDG:

DATE:

INSPECTOR (PRINT):

YES

UNSAT/

NO

Are the inventory spares maintained at the quantity listed in the MSP Baseline?

Are spare parts & assemblies properly stored & protected?

Are all spares, assemblies, power supplies, etc. marked to indicate their status (i.e. RFI, NRFI, AWP, and AWM)? See note 1

Do all items marked RFI (ready for issue) indicate date tested?

Are operation & maintenance supplies (e.g. PMS supplies, etc.) maintained at a level sufficient to meet minimum performance objectives?

Are Inventory charts posted and up to date?

Is excess equipment segregated and labeled?

Does inventory identify Government vs Contractor equipment?

Note 1: Disregard items that are in sealed packaging.

REMARKS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* IAW PWS Paragraph 6.2; The Site Manager will be given 24 hours to correct discrepancies prior to a complete re-inspection of all items previously inspected.

Yes: ________________ No: _______________ (If No, provide reason in Remarks.)

Inspector Title/Print/Sign/Date: _______________________________________________________________

Site Lead Print/Sign/Date: _________________________ COR Print/Sign/Date: _______________________

ROOM:

BLDG:

DEVICE:

EQUIPMENT:

YES

UNSAT/

NO

Are all personnel available for repair within SOW response time?

Are corrective actions in accordance with approved guidelines for troubleshooting?

Were proper tools, materials, lubricants, and parts used?

Was a lockout/tagout required? If so, were proper tagout procedures administered?

Were all safety precautions observed?

Was the equipment status log and trainer maintenance log book updated?

Did the personnel completing the corrective action do so in a manner demonstrating the level of competence required under the contract?

Were proper reference documents used to support corrective actions?

REMARKS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Inspector Title/Print/Sign/Date: _______________________________________________________________

Site Lead Print/Sign/Date: _________________________ COR Print/Sign/Date: _______________________

ROOM:

BLDG:

DATE:

YES

UNSAT/

NO

Are contractor installed modifications complete?

Are all modifications correctly documented, i.e. entered into trainer logbooks, prints & manuals redlined & annotated, etc?

Does the modification function as it was intended to function? If no, annotate the reason(s).

Are all cables, wires, harnesses & internal components correctly restrained?

Are only authorized hardware changes being utilized?

Are only authorized software changes being utilized?

Has written authorization been given for any parts, chassis, assemblies, etc. which have been moved?

Are all spare circuit card assemblies updated to current revision?

REMARKS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Inspector Title/Print/Sign/Date: _______________________________________________________________

Site Lead Print/Sign/Date: _________________________ COR Print/Sign/Date: _______________________

DEVICE: EQUIPMENT:

________________MIP: __ __ MRC:_____________ DATE:_____________

ROOM: BLDG: MAINT TECH:

INSPECTOR (PRINT):

YES

UNSAT/

NO

Are PMS schedules current and accurate?

Is PMS accomplished as specified by the sequence control chart and PMS schedule?

Are PMS schedules approved, posted, maintained up to date, and initialed completed or not fully accomplished?

Are MRC requirements met with no errors?

Was PMS accomplished IAW MRC?

Were maintenance personnel trained and familiar with MRC procedure?

Were the appropriate number of personnel used to conduct PMS requirements?

Was Correct MRC Used (VERIFY AGAINST MIP)?

Were maintenance requirements listed on MRCs accomplished?

Were all pen/ink changes on MRCs authorized as indicated by COR/ACOR initials?

Were proper tools, materials, lubricants, and parts used?

Was proper PPE used to conduct PMS requirements?

Was tagout/lockout required?

Were proper tagout/lockout procedures administered?

Were all safety precautions observed?

Were PM inspections and required actions recorded on Maintenance Action Forms (MAF) or Government approved substitute forms?

REMARKS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Inspector Title/Print/Sign/Date: _______________________________________________________________

Site Lead Print/Sign/Date: _________________________ COR Print/Sign/Date: _______________________

ROOM: ___

BLDG: _____

DATE: _____ ____

YES

UNSAT/

NO

TECH MANUALS

Are manuals & prints maintained in a neat and orderly manner?

Have all changes been authorized in writing?

Are pen & ink changes neat & legible, with old data deleted by a single line drawn through it and initialed with approval documentation attached?

Is the latest revision in use?

SOFTWARE

Is the latest software version in use & have old revisions been destroyed?

Is software properly stored for its level of classification?

Is software physically protected?

Is the master library listing complete?

Is the software fully operational?

Are backup software maintained?

Are logbooks correctly updated?

Are TECRs submitted as needed?

Are daily status reports accurate?

Is the equipment status log up to date?

Is the Lockout/Tagout device inventory up to date?

REMARKS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* IAW PWS Paragraph 6.2; The Site Manager will be given 24 hours to correct discrepancies prior to a complete re-inspection of all items previously inspected.

Yes: ________________ No: _______________ (If No, provide reason in Remarks.)

Inspector Title/Print/Sign/Date: _______________________________________________________________

Site Lead Print/Sign/Date: _________________________ COR Print/Sign/Date: _______________________ COMMAND:_____________________ INSPECTOR (PRINT): _________________________________

DATE OF SPOT CHECK:

WEEK PMS ACCOMPLISHED:

DATE PMS SCHEDULED:

WC:

_+___ MIP:

MRC:

1. Contact the maintenance person assigned responsibility for the accomplishment of MRC, have the individual deliver the MRC (and EGL if applicable), and determine the following by question and/or personal observation:

SAT/

YES

UNSAT/

NO

Is the man-hour estimate correct? If not, what is the correct estimate?

Are the safety precautions complete as listed? If not, what should be changed?

Were the safety precautions followed when doing the MRC?

Is the tool/material list completed as written? If not, what should be changed?

Were all items listed actually available?

Can the procedure be followed exactly as written? If not, what should be changed?

Was the MRC within the capability of the assigned individual to perform as written?

Was the procedure precisely followed?

Does the equipment condition reflect accomplishment of the MRC?

If an EGL is used, was the MRC performed on all equipment?

Require the individual assigned to this maintenance action to demonstrate, as practicable, one or more steps of the MRC.

(If applicable, has FBR been submitted?) FBR Ser.

2. Overall effectiveness of the accomplishment of this MRC is evaluated to be

A -Fully accomplished

P -Partially accomplished

N -Not accomplished

UD-Undetermined (do not count in sample) REMARKS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Inspector Title/Print/Sign/Date: _______________________________________________________________

Site Lead Print/Sign/Date: _________________________ COR Print/Sign/Date: _______________________

YES

UNSAT/

NO

Is there a Paint and Preservation Plan with scheduled dates?

Is there standing water present?

Is there evidence of mold and mildew?

Interior paint: Is there spalling, flaking, cracking, peeling, or blisters?

Exterior paint: Is there spalling, flaking, cracking, peeling, or blisters?

Is there excessive rust or deterioration?

Is there any oxidation, scales, or tarnishing?

Have surfaces been cleaned and properly prepared for painting (i.e. sanding of old existing paint, cleaning, old primer removed, etc.)?

Has primer been applied correctly (Rust removed through grinding, cleaning, or wire brushing before priming and coating the surface)?

Has rust inhibitors been properly applied?

Paints and coatings are applied correctly (i.e. Sufficient dry time between primer and Paint, Finishes, Coatings, and Sealants for the Protection).

Are pipes properly marked and labeled to include directional arrows?

BLDG:

ROOM:

MONTHLY:

RANDOM:

REMARKS: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* IAW PWS Paragraph 6.2; The Site Manager will be given 24 hours to correct discrepancies prior to a complete re-inspection of all items previously inspected.

Yes: ________________ No: _______________ (If No, provide reason in Remarks.)

Inspector Title/Print/Sign/Date: _______________________________________________________________

Site Lead Print/Sign/Date: _________________________ COR Print/Sign/Date: _______________________

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

Date/Time of Complaint:

Source of Complaint:

Organization:

Individual:

Nature of Complaint:

Contract Reference:

QAE:

Validation:

Date/Time Contractor Informed of Complaint:

Action Taken by Contractor:

Received/Action Validated:

Determination:

Complaint Valid

Complaint Not Valid

Performance Report

1. CONTRACT NUMBER:

2. Prepared by: (Name of COR)

3. Date and time of observation:

4. Observation:

<Examples of items to include in a report are:

- Method of surveillance.

- How frequently you conducted surveillance.

- Surveillance results.

- Number of observation>

Prepared by: <Enter COR name>

Signature

Date

PAGE