QASP IQ-B-UHV Final 6Jun22 .pdf

PREPARED BY

MULTI-NATIONAL AVIATION SPECIAL PROJECT OFFICE

PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICE – AVIATION

HUNTSVILLE, AL 35805

6 June 2022

GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ (GOI) IDU-450 UPGRADE

INSTALLATION, FMS Case IQ-B-UHV

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

IDU-450 Upgrade Installation

Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

__________________________________________ Date______________

Carl “Blake” Anderson Assistant Product Director, Scout / Attack

____________________________________ Date____________

Nathan L. Greer Lieutenant Colonel, US Army Product Director, Scout / Attack

1.0 Introduction

The primary interest of the Government is the acceptability of the service or final product provided by the Contractor. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) establishes the procedures and responsibilities for monitoring, reviewing, and reporting the Contractor's performance for the Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) services outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for the Iraq IDU-450 Upgrade Installation.

This effort will be a new contract with a Period of Performance (POP) of one (1) base year from contract award and four (4) subsequent option years for a total of five years. This is a directed source acquisition to Bell Helicopter. The CLS requirement is for the Iraq Army’s consolidated fleet consisting of three (3) Training T407 and eighteen (18) Iraqi Armed IA407 aircraft. This effort includes parts, material, labor as required by the Contractor developed installation instructions. The CLS team shall provide liaison and/or advisory services to include logistic support with Iraqi Soldiers performing all maintenance work for Bell platforms. This Foreign Military Sales (FMS) requirement is described in Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) IQ-B-UHV, signed LOA, dated 12 Oct 2021.

2.0 Purpose

This QASP is a government developed and applied document used to assure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the Consolidated Iraqi Bell CLS Contract and any subsequent modifications awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of the basic contract. The purpose of the QASP is to ensure the Government receives the services specified in the contract and that those services meet the performance standards specified.

The goal is to verify Contractor performance is in accordance with the contract requirements and to assess whether the Government receives an acceptable level of performance from the Contractor. The QASP is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor's quality control efforts to assure contract requirements are performed in a timely and effective manner. The QASP is not part of the basic Contract and is not intended to duplicate the Contractor's Quality Control Plan (QCP). This QASP specifically covers the effort required by the contract PWS for the helicopter platforms identified in Paragraph 1.0.

3.0 Authority

Authority of issuance of this QASP is provided under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 46, which provides for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the contract. This acceptance is to be executed by the Contracting Officer or his/her duly authorized representative.

4.0 Government Roles and Responsibilities

The following definitions for Government resources are applicable to this plan:

Program/Project Manager (PM) -The PM provides primary program oversight, nominates the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) with the concurrence of employees’ branch/division chief, ensures the COR is trained before performing any COR duties and supports the COR's performance assessment activities. The PM may serve as a direct conduit to provide Government guidance and feedback to the Contractor on technical matters, they are not empowered to make any contractual commitments or any contract changes on the Government's behalf.

Assigned PM: Nathan L. Greer

Organization or Agency: Multi-National Aviation Special Project Office (MASPO)

Telephone (256) 842-8055 DSN 788-8055

Email: nathan.l.greer2.mil@mail.mil

Contracting Officer - A person duly appointed with the authority to enter, administer, or terminate contractual actions and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. 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. The Contracting Officer 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.

Assigned Contracting Officer: Sarah Shaffer

Organization or Agency: Army Contracting Command (ACC) Redstone

Telephone: (256) 842-8069 DSN 788-8069

Email: sarah.a.shaffer4.civ@army.mil

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) - An individual designated in writing by the Contracting Officer to act as his/her authorized representative to assist in the administration of individual contracts. The source of authority for the COR is the Contracting Officer.

COR limitations are contained in the written letter of appointment. The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the Contractor's performance.

Assigned COR: Aaron M. Dotson

Organization or Agency: Multi-National Aviation Special Project Office (MASPO)

Telephone: (256) 313-4468 DSN 746-4468

Email: aaron.m.dotson.civ@army.mil

5.0 Method of Surveillance

The method of evaluating Contractor compliance may vary. The COR is responsible for selection of the method to be used and the specific detailing of the method. In determining the evaluation method, the COR will consider what the contract specifically calls for, the ways performance can be observed, and if the proposed method of mailto:nathan.l.greer2.mil@mail.mil surveillance is adequate to assure the required level of performance has been achieved.

The COR will utilize the below surveillance methods and evaluate in IAW the criteria listed in APPENDIX A.

A. Description of Surveillance Methods:

(1) Management Information Systems (MIS). The Contractor shall provide a bi-monthly Aircraft Status Report (ASR) and monthly Program Status Report (PSR) that contains performance/progress, status, and management reports to ensure that the Contractor is making adequate progress towards meeting contract objectives/making required deliverables on time and within estimated contract costs stated in the PWS, Paragraphs 3.3.2 This report shall be provided IAW DI-MGMT-80368, CDRL A008.

(2) Validated User/ Customer Complaint via survey. Relies on the user of the service to identify deficiencies. Both oral and written complaints are then documented in a log, investigated, and validated. The outcome of the investigation and validation process then is recorded in the log.

(3) Analysis of Contractor’s progress report. The Contractor shall provide a monthly Contract

Funds Status Report (CFSR) that consists of the total requirements for contract work stated in paragraph 3.3.1 of the PWS, IAW DI-MGMT-81468, CDRL A007.

(4) Routine Inspection of Deliverable Products/Services. The Contractor shall provide oversight in Supply Management, Services for Materials and Hardware/Spare Parts process. Sampling of contractor-provided parts inspected by DCMA can be assessed for appropriate certification and documentation through historical logs/records.

B. Implementation of Surveillance Methods:

(1) CORs will perform their surveillance duties in a manner that will in no way result in Contractor emp1oyees being managed as though they were Government employees. A formal arms-length relationship shall be always maintained with the Contractor to avoid even the appearance that the contract is for personal services. Communication with the Contractor's employees on contractual matters shall only be through the supervisory or lead Contractor employee (s) designated by the Contractor as the point of contact for such manners.

(2) All personnel engaged in contracting and related activities shall conduct business dealings with industry in a manner above reproach in every aspect and shall protect the Government’s interest, as well as maintain its reputation for fair and equal dealings with all Contractors. DOD 5500.7-R sets forth standards of conduct for all personnel directly and indirectly involved in contracting.

(3) CORs shall not give any direction to the Contractor that is not authorized by the PWS, as it is not the intent of the Government that a Contractor be required to do anything that is not included in the contract. CORs are not empowered to award or agree to sign any contract as Contracting Officer or contract modification or in any way to obligate the payment of money by the Government. CORs may not take any action which may affect contract schedules, funds, or scope of effort. All contractual agreements, commitment, or modifications, which involve price, quality, quantity, and delivery schedule or other terms and conditions of the contract, shall be made only by the Contracting Officer.

(4) CORs shall maintain written records of any interface with the Contractor, recording the date and a brief description of all documents or other items furnished to the Contractor.

Any other data that is considered pertinent shall be recorded. Records shall be made available to the Contracting Officer upon reasonable notice.

6.0 Issue Resolution

The issue resolution process shall occur through a Government contractual chain of command from the COR to the Contracting Officer and, if necessary, through Contracting Center channels up to the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA). Issues shall be addressed and resolved at the lowest level possible; however, all issues having contractual implications, or which are beyond a COR authority as defined in the COR Appointment Letter signed by the Contracting Officer, shall be brought to the immediate attention of the next higher level in the contractual chain of command. The Contracting Officer and COR will also notify and seek the advice of the applicable Government attorney/advisor on all significant issues that involve potential legal ramifications. Every possible effort shall be made to resolve all issues at the Contracting Officer level or lower. However, issues may arise that require attention from higher-level investigative organizations (e.g., IG, AAA, CID, etc.). All appointed officials on this program shall provide full and complete cooperation with any such investigative bodies.

7.0 Contractor Performance Assessment Report

In addition to on-going surveillance of the Contractor performance during the period of performance of the contract, a formal assessment is required by the requiring activity for all service contracts in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 42 and Army FAR Supplement (AFARS) 5142.15. The Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) will be prepared on an interim basis at the completion of 12 months performance and annually thereafter until the contract is physically complete.

The COR assigned to the case will assess the Contractor's performance in the CPAR in three major areas (1) Quality of Service and Product, (2) Schedule including CDRL deliveries, and (3) Cost Control. This assessment will correlate with the assessment of the Contractor's performance in achieving contract performance objectives (see paragraph 9).

Input shall also be requested by the COR, as applicable, from other functional areas (i.e., Quality, Logistics Support, Systems Engineering, Schedule, Cost) that have oversight of the Contractor's performance in these specific areas. The COR will review and compile all input for submission to the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer, considering the COR input, will complete an Interim Performance Assessment Report (PAR) and forward it to the Contractor for review. If no rebuttal is received, the Contracting Officer will enter the PAR data into the Department of Defense (DoD) Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System. If the Contractor takes exception to the Government's assessment and the Contracting Officer cannot obtain reconciliation. A final determination shall be made by the Resolution Authority (i.e., HCA or designee). A final CPAR shall be prepared upon completion of physical performance of the contract

8.0 Documentation

The COR shall, in addition to providing documentation to the Contracting Officer, Maintain a complete Quality Assurance file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, and recommendations and any actions related to the Government's performance of the Quality Assurance function. All records will be retained for the period of performance of the contract. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at the completion of the contract.

9.0 Performance Requirements

The following performance objectives will be utilized: (1) Technical Assistance with Oversight: (2) Adherence to contract schedules, milestone, and delivery requirements:

and (3) Efficient and effective control of cost. As defined in the contract, it is the Contractor’s responsibility to employ the necessary resources to ensure accomplishment of these objectives. The Government's assessment of the Contractor's performance in achieving these objectives shall utilize the standards and acceptable quality levels (AQLs), surveillance methods, and performance incentives described in the Performance Requirements Summary matrix set forth in Appendix A of this plan.

Since the performance matrix is the guideline for the determination by the COR as to the acceptability of the service or final product provided by the Contractor, Appendix A will be used to facilitate the completion of the interim and annual CPARS as defined in Paragraph 7.0.

APPENDIX A

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY MATRIX

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE

PERFORMANCE

STANDARD

ACCEPTABLE QUALITY

LEVEL (AQL)

METHOD OF

SURVEILLANCE

PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE

Technical Assistance with Oversight PWS Paragraphs (3.1, 3.5.4, 3.5.6, 3.6, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9)

Contractual requirements met with few minor and no significant problems

Performance meets all technical and functional requirements, and is highly responsive to changes in technical direction and/or the technical support environment

Assessments, evaluations, analyses, recommendations, and related assistance are thorough, reliable, highly relevant to contractual requirements, and consist of substantial depth and breadth of subject matter

Deliverable reports contain all required data with fewer than two discrepancies per submission and meet all applicable CDRL requirements

Contractor technical assistance of services meets all contractual requirements.

Problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a satisfactory manner.

Routine Inspection of Deliverable

Products/Services

Validated User/ Customer Complaint

Performance and Progress Reports

Electronic submission for government acceptance

Assignment of annual Performance Assessment Report (PAR) rating for QUALITY criteria:

EXCEPTIONAL RATING

Performance and deliverables meet all and exceed many contractual requirements. Performance/delivery occurs with no problems at least 95% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a highly effective manner.

VERY GOOD RATING

Performance and deliverables meet all and exceed some contractual requirements. Performance/delivery occurs with no problems at least 90% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in an effective manner.

SATISFACTORY RATING

Performance and deliverables meet all contractual requirements. Performance/ delivery occur with no problems at least 80% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a satisfactory manner.

MARGINAL RATING

Some contractual requirements not met and/or performance/delivery occurs with no problems less than 80% of time.

Problems encountered were resolved in a less than satisfactory manner.

UNSATISFACTORY RATING

Many contractual requirements not met.

Substantial problems were encountered, and no corrective actions employed.

Adherence to Contract Schedule PWS Paragraph (3.2.2, 3.3)

Efficient and Effective Control of Cost PWS Paragraphs (3.3.1)

Contractual milestones, period of performance, and/or data submission dates are met or exceeded

Contract cost is controlled in efficient and effective manner

Contractor meets contractual requirements at least 85% of the time (excluding gov’t caused delays)

Effective control of cost is zero cost variances.

Routine Inspection of Deliverable Products/Services

Management Information Systems

Validated User/ Customer Complaint

Performance and Progress Reports

Routine Inspection of Contract Performance, Performance/Cost Report, Payments Invoices, Etc.

Management Information Systems

Performance and Progress Reports

Assignment of annual Performance Assessment Report (PAR) rating for SCHEDULE criteria:

EXCEPTIONAL RATING

Contract milestones/ performance dates met or exceeded at least 95% of time (excluding government caused delays)

VERY GOOD RATING

Contract milestones/ performance dates met or exceeded at least 90% of time (excluding government caused delays)

SATISFACTORY RATING

Contract milestones/ performance dates met or exceeded at least 85% of time (excluding government caused delays)

MARGINAL RATING

Contract milestones/ performance dates met or exceeded at least70% of time (excluding government caused delays)

UNSATISFACTORY RATING

Contract schedule/performance dates met less than 70% of time

Assignment of annual Performance Assessment Report (PAR) rating for RESOURCE CONTROL criteria:

EXCEPTIONAL RATING

Contract milestones/ performance dates met or exceeded at least 100% of time (excluding government caused delays)

VERY GOOD RATING

Contract milestones/ performance dates met or exceeded at least 90% of time (excluding government caused delays)

SATISFACTORY RATING

Cost variance contractor met cost with zero variances.

MARGINAL RATING

Contractor cost exceeds cost baseline by 10% to 15%.

UNSATISFACTORY RATING

Contractor cost exceeds cost baseline by -20%.