QASP.pdf

N68936-15-R-0073

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

For C-130 FMS Engineering and Sustainment Support

08 May 2015

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure utilization of systematic quality assurance methods in the administration of the Level of Effort (LOE) services under the planned contract. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the Performance Work

Statement (PWS) and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract.

This contract requirement as defined in the PWS is to provide engineering and sustainment support services for C-

130H aircraft to Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers. The scope of the effort is to analyze safety, maintenance, and equipment discrepancies and in turn develop corrective actions and recommendations within designated times as determined by assigned priority. These services will provide Aerospace Sustainment Engineering results from C-

130H operations through direct observation, analysis and reporting. The above described support services will be performed at the Contractor’s facility located at Warner Robins, GA. The Contractor may be required to temporarily travel to other activities within CONUS Navy and Marine Corps commands/organizations.

This Requirement will be met through the PWS of the basic contract. The contract will have a three year ordering period, consisting of one base year and two option years. 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 by 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 Management 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 contract and documented in the Quality Management Plan.

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 makes related determination and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO for this contract is Ms. Debra Zamarron, NAVAIR Code 254200D.

The ACO will be designated upon award of 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 upon award of the resulting contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR) – An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative, in the absence of the COR, to assist in administering the contract. The ACOR will be appointed upon award of the resulting contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

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.

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.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR) – The ACOR is responsible for technical surveillance of the Contractor’s performance in the absence of the COR. The 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.

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. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed annually in accordance with CPARS Policy Guide dated October 2010 at the contract level. The

Government for this procurement will address the quality of product or service, schedule and cost control of the services set forth in the PWS, and will include performance objectives, performance thresholds, minimum acceptance levels and surveillance methods. As this information may affect future source selections throughout

DoD, and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP

b. 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 forms to be used for documentation of quality assurance surveillance are monthly and the Surveillance Activity Criteria and Checklist provided as enclosure (1) herein.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1) and (2) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the contractor and COR while enclosure (3) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document on a semi-annual basis the results of the surveillance and shall be provided to the Contracting Officer on a semi-annual basis.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing the semi-annual 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 Checklist and the COS. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer semi-annually to ensure surveillance is occurring and performance is satisfactory. The COR shall forward all records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the contract.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) Performance Quality and Data Standards

Enclosure (2) Incentives

Enclosure (3) Surveillance Activity Checklist

Enclosure (1)

PERFORMANCE QUALITY STANDARDS

Required Service

(Performance

Requirements)

Standard Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)

Method of

Surveillance

(Quality

Assurance)

Incentives

Reference PWS

PARA 3.1.1.3

Contractor priority responses

The Contractor shall respond to

Governments initiated queries based upon assigned priority level provided and in accordance with (IAW) the PWS.

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

Project Leads.

See Enclosure (2)

Reference SOW Para

3.2.1

Develop and maintain structural substantiation data via Contractor software/systems, documentation and configuration data IAW the PWS.

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

Project Leads.

See Enclosure (2)

Reference SOW Para

3.2.2

Maintain the existing Contractor C-

130H structural database consisting of all AAF structural issues. This database shall include all provided source data, initial resolutions, final resolutions, and form and location of final documentation. Maintenance shall be provided IAW the PWS.

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

Project Leads.

See Enclosure (2)

Reference SOW Para

3.2.3

Evaluate damage reports and recommend restrictions, limitations, or course of action to restore structural integrity; design repairs, perform analyses for repair designs to ensure that the repaired structure shall meet static, dynamic, and fatigue structural requirements, and issues repair sketches

IAW the PWS.

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

Project Leads.

See Enclosure (2)

Reference SOW Para

3.2.4

The contractor shall develop and implement an ASIP program IAW MIL-

STD-1530C, Task V, “Force

Management Execution”, paragraphs

5.5.1, 5.5.5, 5.5.6 and 5.5.7 IAW the

PWS.

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

Project Leads.

See Enclosure (2)

Reference SOW Para

3.2.5

The contractor shall analyze the data semi-annually to determine the severity of utilization as compared to the original profile (severity factor or fatigue consumption rate). This shall be performed IAW the PWS.

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

Project Leads.

See Enclosure (2)

Reference SOW Para

3.2.6

The contractor will determine the equivalent flight hours on each airframe

IAW the PWS.

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

Project Leads.

See Enclosure (2)

Reference SOW Para

3.2.7

The contractor shall deliver a Structural

Life Analysis Report that provides the raw data and analysis showing the fatigue consumption rate (severity factor) for each airframe and its impact to airframe life and maintenance schedules IAW the PWS

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

Project Leads.

See Enclosure (2)

Enclosure (1)

Reference SOW Para

3.2.8

The contractor shall respond to US

Government inquiries and requests for assistance regarding aircraft exceedances and related structural health monitoring IAW the PWS.

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

Project Leads.

See Enclosure (2)

Reference SOW Para

3.2.9

The contractor shall maintain a database of all USG SHM issues for which the

Contractor’s input is requested including questions IAW the PWS.

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

Project Leads.

See Enclosure (2)

Reference SOW Para

3.2.10

The contractor shall utilize the

Automated Inspection, Repair, Corrosion & Aircraft Tracking

(AIRCAT) system to collect and analyze aircraft usage data and generate the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program

(ASIP) reports IAW the PWS.

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

Project Leads.

See Enclosure (2)

Reference SOW Para

3.2.11

The Contractor shall provide sustaining engineering and technical support for the AAF C-130 Corrosion Prevention and Control Program. The Contractor shall provide engineering and technical support for the strategic planning and oversight of the corrosion program and the requirements of MIL-STD-1530C, Aircraft Structural Integrity Program

(ASIP). Reference PWS PARA 3.2.11 sub PARA’s a, b, c, d, e, f, g.

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR,

and/or Government

DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Required Service

(Performance

Requirements)

Standard Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)

Method of

Surveillance

(Quality

Assurance)

Incentives

Add CDRL’s after

CDRL need determination has been made

Submission is in accordance with the

CDRL. 95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by

COR

Submission is in accordance with the

CDRL. 95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

CDRL. 95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

CDRL. 95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

Enclosure (2)

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this contract:

Assessment

Period

Acceptable Performance

Definition

How Measured

Incentive or Remedy

Base All measurement areas rate at least “Satisfactory” or above. Two or more areas are rated as “Very Good” or above.

The average of the contract’s semi-annual

Performance Evaluation will be reported to

CPARS.

(+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as a condition for satisfactory or better CPARS rating.

Acceptable performance is a condition for exercise of option I

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition which will result in a marginal or unsatisfactory CPARS rating.

Option I All measurement areas rate at least “Satisfactory” or above. Two or more areas

Performance Evaluation condition for satisfactory or better CPARS rating.

Acceptable performance is a condition for exercise of option

II

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition which will result in a marginal or unsatisfactory CPARS rating.

Option II All measurement areas rate at least “Satisfactory” or above. Two or more areas

Performance Evaluation condition for satisfactory or better CPARS rating.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition which will result in a marginal or unsatisfactory CPARS rating.

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

Quality of Product or Service – 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 efforts, 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 effect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events (i.e., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions.

Cost Control – Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. Is the contractor experiencing cost growth or underrun? If so, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns. For contracts where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor provided person-hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the contractor

Enclosure (2) demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility, through the efficient use of resources in each work effort should be assessed.

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. 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:

Performance Based Evaluation: The Government will evaluate contractor performance based on their ability to complete work specified in the scope and PWS paragraphs 3.1 through 3.6. The contractor shall be evaluated using the following ratings:

Exceptional Performance: Contractor’s performance of virtually all contract requirements consistently exceeds the acceptable standards and in addition provides numerous significant, tangible or intangible, benefits to the

Government (e.g., improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). The few areas for improvement are all minor. There are no recurring problems. Contractor’s management initiates effective corrective action whenever needed.

Very Good Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract requirements is consistently above acceptable standards and provides significant tangible and intangible benefits to the Government (e.g., improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). Although some areas require improvement, these areas are minor and are offset by better performance in other areas. Few, if any, recurring problems have been noted, and the contractor takes satisfactory corrective action.

Satisfactory Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract requirements meets the acceptable standards with some tangible or intangible benefits to the Government (e.g., improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). Although there are some areas of very good or excellent performance, these are more or less offset by unsatisfactory performance in other areas.

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: Contractor’s performance of most contract requirements is inconsistent and frequently does not always meet acceptable standards. Quality, responsiveness, and timeliness in many areas require attention and action. Corrective actions have not been taken or are ineffective.

If the contractor has not met all regulatory requirements and the contractor is not rated Satisfactory or better, future option awards may be denied.

The contractor will be required to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels.

Enclosure (3)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

Semi-Annual Surveillance:

The COR will perform a semi-annual assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in

Enclosure 2.

Description

Surveillance

Method/

Measure

Quality Schedule Cost

Control

Business

Relations

Management

Other

Reference PWS

PARA 3.1.1.3

Contractor priority responses

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or Government

Reference SOW

Para 3.2.1

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or

Para 3.2.2

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or

Para

3.2.3

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or

3.2.4

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or

3.2.5

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or

3.2.6

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or

3.2.7

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or

3.2.8

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or

3.2.9

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or

3.2.10

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or

Enclosure (3)

Checklist Completed By: ____________________________

Date Completed: ___________________________

Para 3.2.11

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or