QASP.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP)

GSD Funding

Secondary Power Systems (SPS)

Contract FD20202200781

Prepared By:

Tosh Farr

31 May 2022

419 SCMS/GUEA

6041 Gum Lane

Hill AFB, UT 84056-5826

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………..3

1.1 PURPOSE………………………………………………………………………3

1.2 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT APPROACH………………..3

1.3 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY………………….4

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES…………………..…………………………….4

3.0 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE…………………….5

4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTING AND ANALYSIS…………………..5

5.0 FAILURE TO PERFORM…………………………………………………………….6

ATTACHMENT I……………………………………………………………………………..7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Maintenance Project Sustainment Tool and more specifically the GSD funding was developed to provide improvement efforts where safety, availability, reliability, maintainability, and affordability can be positively impacted. Contract FD20202200781 is the vehicle used to make these types of improvements through the services of a contractor for improvements to the IUID program. It is an engineering services type of contract with a Firm Fixed Pricing arrangement. It was developed fund scanning improvements to Secondary Power Systems and Auxiliary Power Units (APU) hot section parts. In the past, the Secondary Power Systems squadron has struggled with marking hot section items with an IUID mark. Other marking methodologies have inherent adverse effects on the components. Some of these include Heat Affected Zone (HAZ), as well as extensive engineering work necessary to qualify the part for use in the APU or other system.

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides the standard of surveillance for the MPST contract. This performance-based plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Contracting Officer (CO) and the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will use in evaluating the technical performance of the contractor.

1.1 PURPOSE

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to measure performance and to identify the reports required and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards identified in the Statement of Objectives (SOO).

1.1.2 This QASP is designed to define roles and responsibilities, identify the performance objectives, define the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describe quality assurance reporting, and describe the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating the Contractor’s performance.

1.2 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

1.2.1 The PBWS structures the acquisition around “what” service is required as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work. This QASP will define the performance management approach used by the COR to monitor, manage, and take appropriate action on the contractor’s performance against expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the SOO.

Performance management rests upon developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance metrics. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management. The data generated in a performance management approach provides information that indicates whether or not expected outcomes for required services are being achieved adequately by the contractor.

1.2.2 Performance management also represents a significant shift from the more traditional Quality Assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether or not outcomes are being achieved and migrates away from scrutiny on compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (Federal, State, and Local) and compelling business situations such as safety and health. An outcome focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved at the desired levels of performance.

1.3 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

1.3.1 The contractor’s internal quality control system will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the delivery, quality, responsiveness, service & support, and development of contracted services. The contractor will use its own internal quality reporting system to review and assess performance and report to the engineer. The engineer may be involved with the rating system as requested by the contractor. The attributes rated in this performance process should cover the contractor’s ability to meet the requirements in the SOO.

1.3.2 The engineer will monitor performance using the input of the contractor’s internal report coupled with communicated performance objectives and taskings. The engineer will make decisions based on performance measurement metric data and notify the contractor of those decisions. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The CO is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration and cost control. The CO is also responsible for resolving any differences between observations documented by the engineer and the contractor’s performance.

2.2 The CO will work with the 419 SCMS as the Government authority for performance management. Additional representatives serving as Technical Inspectors will be engaged according to the project they support and the complexity of the services required.

2.3 The engineer is responsible for monitoring, assessing, and communicating the technical performance of the contractor and assisting the CO and COR. The COR will have the responsibility for completing monthly performance reports to document the contractor’s compliance to the SOO.

3.0 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

3.1 In an effort to minimize the contract administration burden, simplified methods of surveillance techniques shall be used. The primary methods of surveillance will be through 100% inspection of all deliverables, reporting from Technical Inspectors working with the contractor on the specific project, and communication received between the COR and the contractor. The contract authority used is FAR 52.246-5; Inspection of Services- Cost Reimbursement.

3.1.1 Inspection is a technique that will be used to evaluate the contract deliverables before they are officially accepted by the government. The inspection will be performed by the assigned systems engineer and reported on to the COR. The items inspected in the deliverable will include, but are not limited to, schedule, detail, quality, accuracy, and conformance to standards in accordance with its accompanying CDRL.

3.1.2 The Technical Inspector will likely be the project engineer. They will be required to update the COR on a regular basis as to how he/she feels the contractor is performing. They will be expected to provide examples of performance whether it is positive or negative. They will be required to work closely with the contractor to ensure individual projects meet government expectations.

3.1.3 The contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication with its customers. The COR will be the main interface with the contractor in tracking project progress.

Constant communication will be needed to ensure that government requirements are met. This communication will be the key in assessing contractor performance as required by the SOO.

4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

4.1 The expected outcomes for projects under this contract are communicated in the SOO. For the purposes of this document, the performance Standards are outlined in Attachment 1 of this document.

4.2 The Government’s QA monitoring, accomplished by the COR (and others as designated by the contracting officer) will be reported to the contracting officer each month. The report will detail each paragraph in the requirements section of the SOO. The report will also include the following details of projects currently on contract: Period of Performance (POP), dollars spent as shown by Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) and by the Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR), and work completed as required by the EPD.

4.2.1 The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA monitoring forms.

4.3 The COR will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor and if necessary the contractor will meet with the CO as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of these reviews may discuss:

Monthly performance measured by the metrics and trends

Issues and concerns of both parties

Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trend

Recommendations made by the engineer based on contractor information

Issues arising from independent reviews and inspections

4.4 The CO must communicate with the contractor when an unacceptable level of performance is defined. To resolve issues and concerns of marginal or unacceptable performance the CO will coordinate with the contractor and engineer to formulate a plan to bring the performance rating to an acceptable level.

4.5 The CO/COR, engineer, and contractor should jointly formulate tactical, and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the CO.

5.0 FAILURE TO PERFORM

5.1 The contract may be terminated based on the contractor’s failure to perform. The following criteria apply for determining appropriate action:

1. Notifications. Consistent with FAR Part 49, the CO shall notify the service provider of failure to meet standards through QA reports, cure notices, or show cause notices and shall inform the service provider project manager or designated alternate of such notices.

2. Considerations. When the contractor fails to meet the terms of the contract (i.e. schedule delays), the CO has the right to notify the contractor that considerations are being taken due to lack of performance. For the contractor to realign with the terms of the contract a bi-lateral modification will establish the agreement.

3. CPARS Rating. The contractor’s future business depends heavily on past performance.

Performance failures will be documented in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Achieving positive ratings motivates performance.

4. Termination. If the CO determines that the contractor has failed to perform to the extent that a termination for default is justified, the CO shall issue a notice of termination, consistent with FAR Part 49.

Revisions to QASP: At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, revisions to this QASP are allowable and may be implemented. Revisions to this surveillance plan are the joint responsibility of the COR and the Contracting Officer. The Government may review and revise the QASP as circumstances warrant throughout the contract period. However, the Government shall coordinate changes with the Contractor. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. The Contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities will receive copies of the original QASP and revisions.

ATTACHMENT 1

REQUIRED PERFORMANCE METRICS TABLE

Required Service Performance Standard

Performance Threshold Method of Surveillance

Final Report

Per SOO

-2 weeks from final project closeout

-95% on time Monthly surveillance report and evaluations

Updated Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

Per SOO

-Updated Quarterly (Each Quarter from start of Contract)

-100% on time Monthly surveillance report and evaluations

Test Plan

Per SOO

-Submitted as agreed upon by Contractor and CO once the IMS is approved at the start of project

-100% on time Monthly surveillance report and evaluations

Test Report

Per SOO

Due 2 weeks after all testing is complete

-100 % on time Monthly surveillance report and evaluations

Meeting Minutes

-Delivered 2 days after each informal meeting

-Delivered 2 weeks after each formal meeting

-95% on time

-95% on time

Monthly surveillance

GFP/GFM/GFE List

-Submit list at start of project and at end of project

-100% Monthly surveillance