Section_J _Atch_B _Tech_Svs_QASP_Draft_Sept_2015_rev1.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) For

RQ-7B Shadow TUAS Technical Services and Field Support

Solicitation Number: W911QY-16-R-0009

Contract Number: TBD

Contractor’s Name and Address: TBD

APPROVED: __________________________________ DATE_________________

Product Manager Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE

1.1 Overview

1.2 Objectives

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contractor

2.2 The Government

2.3 Customer Complaints……………………………………………………………….2

3. METHODS OF ASSESSMENT

3.1 Inspection Methods

3.1.1 Periodic Inspection………………………………………………………….3

3.1.2 100% Inspection……………………………………………………………..3

3.1.3 Analysis and Review………………………………………………………...3

3.1.4 Routine….………………………………………………...…………………3

3.2 Inspection Method Selection

3.3 Process/Procedures

4. QASP Items to Monitor for Shadow ESM Contract……………………………………4 Table 1…………………………………………………………………………………….5 Tasks to be Monitored and Performance Threshold

5. UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE AND REMEDIES

5.1 Unacceptable Performance

5.2 Inform Contract Manager

6. POINTS OF CONTACT

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government document developed in accordance with FAR 46.401 to ensure the performance of critical elements in the Shadow Engineering Services contract. The QASP serves as the plan for surveillance of performance and identifies the performance indicators, standards, inspections methods and procedures to be used in monitoring performance. It details thresholds for acceptable and unacceptable performance for specific tasks within the Statement of Work (SOW).

1.1 Overview

This QASP outlines the procedures for surveillance by the Contracting Officer (KO), the Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (TUAS) Government Representatives, and DCMA. Included are procedures for evaluating key services, contractor’s performance, and the quality of the product delivered to the Government.

1.2 Objectives

The objective of this surveillance plan is to provide a systematic method to evaluate the products and services the contractor is required to furnish by the contract. The Government’s primary interest is in the final product/service that the contractor is providing and not in the details of how the contractor is accomplishing the task. The TUAS PdM / Government Representative may evaluate work at any time during the contractor’s period of performance. This plan documents the methods to be used for measuring each contract requirement, the scheduling of inspections, and the results of the surveillance program.

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contractor

The contractor, not the Government, shall be responsible for the management and quality control actions necessary to meet the terms of the contract. It is understood that on rare exceptions unforeseen and uncontrollable problems do occur. This has been recognized and incorporated into thresholds for acceptable and unacceptable performance. Good management and use of an adequate quality control plan will allow the contractor to operate within specified performance requirements. The contractor is responsible for providing all information to the Government that is necessary to accurately evaluate performance.

2.2 The Government

The Government desires to maintain a quality standard for completion of all tasks specified in the SOW/Contract and is responsible for developing measurable standards to evaluate performance.

The Contracting Officer (KO) and Contracting Officer Representative (COR) are to be objective, fair and consistent in evaluating Contractor performance against the standards.

(1) The COR will perform his/her surveillance duties in a manner that will in no way result in contractor employees being managed as though they were Government employees. A formal, arms-length relationship shall be maintained with the contractor at all times in order 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 matters. These same rules apply to any additional PM-UAS representatives that are asked to assist in with the contractor’s contractual performance evaluation.

(2) The COR shall not give any direction to the contractor that is not authorized by the

Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement. This rule applies to any additional PM-UAS representatives that are asked to assist in with the contractor’s contractual performance evaluation.

(3) The COR shall maintain records of Quarterly Management Reviews with the contractor, recording the date, brief description of issues reviewed, and any other data considered pertinent. The TUAS PdM Representative will maintain a Quality Assurance File. The COR, with input from DCMA or other PM-UAS representatives, shall generate a contractor summary report for contracts that exceed $2 million. The summary report along with the support documentation for the requirements in Table 1 shall be retained for the life of the contract, and forwarded to the Contracting Officer upon completion of contract, as requested.

2.3 Customer Complaints

(1) Customer complaints may be submitted by any form of communication, including telephone, fax, and e-mail. Any customer observing unacceptable services or quality of work for any of the items covered by the QASP should immediately contact the KO and designated COR.

(2) The COR will initially consider the complaint valid, verbally notify the contracting officer, document the complaint, and validate the complaint by investigating the complaint. The COR retains a copy of the written complaint. The contractor will be provided a copy of the written customer complaint from the Government KO or COR. The contractor will be given two weeks after verbal notification from the Government evaluator to correct the unacceptable performance defect. The KO or COR then lets the customer know when and how the defect will be corrected.

(3) The KO considers customer complaints resolved when customer provides confirmation that the resolution has been completed and is sufficient.

(4) If the contractor disagrees with the complaint and challenges the validity of the complaint, the contractor will notify the COR. If the complaint is invalid, the COR will document the findings and notify the customer.

(5) After an investigation, if the COR determines the complaint is valid, the KO will inform the contractor that the complaint is valid. The contractor is then given an additional week to correct the complaint. Complaints will be recorded if proper and timely correction of the unacceptable condition(s) is accomplished.

(6) The COR shall return documentation to the contractor that the contractor actions resolved the complaint. The COR will document the data for future recurring performance.

NOTE: The customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the COR as opposed to the contractor. The COR will accept the customer complaints and will investigate.

3. METHODS OF ASSESSMENT

3.1 Inspection Methods

This plan may use a combination of surveillance methods which adequately assures the Government of the contractor’s performance.

3.1.1 Periodic Inspection

Periodic inspection is a Quality Assurance (QA) method based on a predetermined plan to evaluate part of the contract outputs using subjective judgment and analysis of agency resources to decide what work to inspect and how frequently to inspect it (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.) as determined by the COR.

3.1.2 100% Inspection

The Shadow TUAS Team will not perform system wide 100 percent inspections. Rather the methodology described in paragraph 3.1.1, for periodic inspections of contract deliverable will guide more in-depth inspection requirements.

3.1.3 Analysis and Review

Analysis is a verification method that is carried out by examining and assessing the application of techniques in order to determine if they are appropriate and sufficient. Review is a verification method that is carried out by examination of completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and technical quality of the deliverables.

3.1.4 Routine

Monitoring of the contractor’s adherence to contractual terms, conditions and performance requirements as well as assessing their responsiveness to changes in technical direction.

3.2 Inspection Method Selection

The depth and detail of observations of work shall be based on the relative importance of the items of work under evaluation. The principal method of surveillance shall be periodic inspection with 100% inspection of key requirements; however, any surveillance method can be used at the Government’s discretion. Certain tasks may be so important that nonperformance or poor performance may significantly impact the mission and warrant 100% inspection. Joint inspections may be made by the COR, TUAS PM Technical Representative, DCMA, and the contractor. These are beneficial when routinely performed. They are vital when any disagreement or misunderstanding occurs.

3.3 Process/Procedures

All Contract deliverables will be assessed against the governing Data Item Description and Contract Data Requirements List for sufficiency and accuracy and subsequently evaluated per Earned Value Management System (EVMS) to assess Schedule, Cost and Performance relationships.

4. Quality Assurance Monitoring

(1) QASP Items to Monitor for Shadow ESM Contract.

All Contract deliverables will be assessed against the governing Data Item Description and Contract Data Requirements List for sufficiency and accuracy and subsequently evaluated per Earned Value Management System (EVMS) to assess Schedule, Cost and Performance relationships.

(2) The Government’s QA monitoring is accomplished by the COR (and others as designated).

(3) The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA monitoring results.

TABLE 1.

Tasks To Be Monitored

Performance Objective

SOW

Para

Performance Threshold Method Frequency

1. Quality Program Plan

(QPP)

3.2.3 Quality Program Plan is reviewed and

updated for all sub-ESMs which affect Critical Safety Items (CSI), critical characteristics, processes and Critical Reliability Components. The QPP shall be IAW DI-QCIC-81722 and AS9100 or equivalent

Reviewed and dispositioned by responsible PMO Quality Engineer and documented response sent to Government Program Manager and COR

At time of initial submittal and document any additional submittals required for approval

2. Manufacturing and Quality Plans submitted for Engineering Efforts

3.2.3.3 Each sub-ESM that requires hardware

shall have both manufacturing and quality plans developed IAW DI-MISC- 80508.

Reviewed and dispositioned by responsible PMO Quality and Production Engineer and documented response sent to Government Program Manager and COR

At time of initial submittal and document any additional submittals required for approval

3. V&V Manufacturing and Quality Processes for all New or Modified Components

3.2.3/ 3.2.3.1.2

All products produced conform to the AS9100 or equivalent quality standard and all gages used to measure key product characteristics shall be validated to have a capability ratio of less than or equal to 25%.

Review changes to ATPs, associated equipment, vendor changes, and line relocations as reported to Government for determination of revalidation requirements. Verify validation prior to LRIP. A documented response sent to Government Program Manager and COR

At time of initial submittal and document any additional submittals required for approval

4. IBR Reviews are conducted IAW the SOW requirements for each sub-ESM >$2M or if the Government’s program manager determines the Sub-ESM to be of high-risk

3.2.1.4 IBR shall verify that the contractor is

using a reliable performance measurement baseline which includes the entire contract scope of work, is consistent with contract schedule requirements, and has adequate resources assigned. This includes the submittal of the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) per the CDRL requirement

The IBR and IMP shall be reviewed by the Government Program Manager and contractor granted permission to proceed through a documented concurrence provided to the COR (formal CDRL approval not required). IBR data shall be delivered to the Government a minimum of 5 days prior to the IBR review between the contractor and the Government

Within 75 days of each applicable Sub- ESM insertion on the contract and within 75 days of after re-base lining.

5. EVMS Cost and schedule performance metrics are measured for each sub-ESM to monitor over-runs and schedule delays

3.2.1.3.1 The contractor shall provide a variance

analysis report on all cumulative cost and schedule variances that are equal to or greater +/-10% and greater than $50,000. The contractor will provide a variance analysis report for variances at program completion that are equal to or greater than +/- 10% and greater than $100,000.

Contractor submitted Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) Format 5 contains the variance analysis of items that trip the threshold.

The IPMR shall be delivered to the Government 12 working days after the contractor’s fiscal month close.

6. ECP boarded and approved for all sub-ESMs requiring ECP

3.2.2.1 Successful Government boarding and

approval of ECP

Contractor submitted ECP is reviewed and approved through the Joint Configuration Control Board. COR is notified by JCCB of ECP approval. ECP shall be delivered to the Government a minimum of 5 days prior to the joint review of the ECP between the contractor and the Government.

Document the number of times required to be submitted to obtain approval

7. Design reviews conducted IAW the SOW and SEMP requirements

3.2.2.1 Design review documentation

conforms to the requirements defined in the sub-ESM SOW and SEMP.

(SRR,SFR,PDR,CDR)

SEMP requirements for design reviews is verified to be in compliance by the Government Program Manager through a documented response to the COR stating the design review meets the sub-ESM SOW requirements, the design review schedule is in conformance to the baseline schedule, the design review approval is relative to the schedule and timing to complete design review action items, the design review presentation shall be delivered to the Government a minimum of 5 days prior to the joint design review between the contractor and the Government

Document compliance when the design review is initially conducted, and complete the contractor’s performance to the contract when the design review is fully approved. This will be completed prior to ECP approval.

8. Test and Evaluation Program Plan completed per the SOW and

IAWDI-NDTI-

81284

3.2.4 Test documentation conforms to the

CDRL requirements defined in the sub- ESM SOW and SEMP and ensures product compliance to the product specification.

Responsible test engineer to provide documented summary of contractor’s compliance to the sub-ESM and SEMP requirements after SRR

At time of initial submittal and document any additional submittals required for approval

9. Test Report shall adequately document the UUT performance against the product performance specification.

3.2.4 Test report shall document the test

results IAW DI-NDTI-80809

Responsible test engineer to provide documented summary of contractor’s compliance to the sub-ESM and SEMP requirements prior to ECP approval

At time of initial submittal and document any additional submittals required for approval

10. Logistics documentation completed per SOW

(IAW GEIA-STD-

0007) requirements for each sub-ESM.

3.2.5.1 .1

Logistics documentation is updated IAW GEIA-STD-0007 and conforms to the SOW requirements for each sub-

ESM

Responsible Government logistics lead to provide documented summary of contractor’s compliance to the sub-ESM and SEMP requirements prior to ECP approval

At time of initial submittal and document any additional submittals required for approval

11. All CDRLs delivered to the Government per the sub-ESM SOW and any other contractual requirements associated with the Engineering Services contracts shall be delivered to the Government per the defined requirements

3.2.2.1 All CDRL requirements per the sub-

ESM SOW, SEMP, and other contractual requirements shall be delivered to the Government per the CDRL delivery requirement defined in the contract

A table of required CDRLs shall be established and the CAM will be responsible for providing updates to the contractor’s compliance to CM and COR.

Compliance to the CDRL requirement shall be met prior to ECP approval unless a waiver or deviation is approved

At time of initial submittal and document any additional submittals required for approval

12. SEMP non- CDRL requirements in compliance

3.2 All reports, documentation, presentation material, and events that are pre-requisites for other events listed in the SEMP, but are not CDRLs, shall conform to the SEMP requirements (example: TRR 5-7 before test event)

Government person’s area of responsibility that the requirement applies will provide documented evidence to the COR of any non-conformance to the SEMP requirements

At time of initial requirement and any additional submittals or events required

13. IA assessments for DIACAP accreditation

3.3 IA assessments are conducted IAW

each sub-ESM requirement to determine if changes to the system associated with the respective sub-ESM impact the security posture of the system.

Responsible Government software engineer to provide documented summary of contractor’s compliance to the sub-ESM and SEMP requirements prior to ECP approval

At time of initial submittal and document any additional submittals required for approval

Performance Objective PWS Paragraph Performance Threshold Surveillance Method Surveillance Frequency

14. System Specific Training

7.1 The contractor shall provide

training for all contracted Shadow TUAS training events for the contract period of performance

Contractor shall provide a summary of complete training events versus scheduled training events

Monthly

15. Technical Manual Updates

7.5.1 The contractor shall

maintain, update, and deliver Technical Manuals, Operator Checklists, and IETMs, utilizing existing standards and styles.

Contractor shall provide TM status reporting for delivery of validated and verified technical manuals which include agreed to scope per agreed to schedule

Monthly

16. PRESET Program 6.4.3.3.1.1 The contractor shall conduct PRESET support to units that are preparing for deployment. This support shall include crewmember currency and refresher training, fielding of upgrades and system/equipment modifications and any upgrade/modification delta training necessary prior to deployment

Contractor shall provide a monthly summary of completed Preset verses scheduled presents

Quarterly

17. RESET Program 6.4.3.3.2.1 The contractor shall provide RESET support for deployed units and an option for addition units.

Contractor shall provide a monthly summary of completed Resets.

Quarterly

18. Field Service Representative (FSR) Program

4.3.1 The contractor shall

provide FSR support personnel to perform system support and

In addition to the UAS GFR QASP, the PMO will monitor FSR

Customer and PMO feedback sustainment functions based on customer needs as coordinated with PM UAS and IAW

AR 95-20.

performance in support of PWS tasks

19. COLTS Data Collection Requirements

7.3.13.3 The contractor shall use

the Government provided COLTS database as the data source for all property book/ownership records, asset transfer actions, maintenance actions, depot repairs, inventory, failure analysis, performance/readiness metrics analysis, system modifications, software upgrades (to include Technical Manuals (TMs), Integrated Electronic Technical Manuals (IETMs), & training materials on the laptop/desktop), and requisitioning/supply transaction data.

Monitor COLTs accuracy for all inventory, supply, and maintenance transactions in COLTS

Sampling, 120 day inventory, GFP lists

20. Supply Transactions 7.3.13.4 COLTS utilized for supply transactions and ensure return of retrograde

Monitor COLTs transactions

Sampling, Supportability meetings, SCM IPT

5. UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE AND REMEDIES

5.1 Unacceptable Performance

If the contractor’s performance is judged unacceptable, the COR will initiate a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR). For the CDR, the COR shall initial the record of the observation and submit the CDR, along with the Inspection Checklist recording the unacceptable performance, to the Contracting Officer. The seriousness of the situation governs whether the COR should provide the CDR to the Contracting Officer as soon as unacceptable performance is indicated.

5.2 Inform Contract Manager

The COR must always contact the contractor’s manager or assigned contractor representative and the local DCMA to inform them of the unacceptable performance, and have DCMA initiate a Corrective Action Request (CAR) to the contractor. A copy of the completed CAR will be kept in the QA file for the contract.

6. POINTS OF CONTACT

Mr. Jason Lucas, Chief, TUAS Engineering, Tel: (256) 313-5430 (DSN 897), E-Mail: jason.p.lucas.civ@mail.mil

Ms. Taua Patrick, TUAS EVM Analyst, Tel: (256) 313-5431 (DSN 897), E-Mail:

taua.t.patrick.civ@mail.mil

Mr. Joseph Pierce, TUAS Production Engineer, Tel: (256) 842-1284 (DSN 897), E-Mail: joseph.l.pierce33.civ@mail.mil

Mr. Rowland Jenkins, TUAS Quality Engineer, Tel: (256) 313-5366 (DSN 897), E-Mail: rowland.l.jenkins.ctr@mail.mil

Ms. Cynthia Monius, DCMA, Tel: (410) 628-4644, E-Mail: cynthia.monius@dcma.mil

DISTRIBUTION:

PM Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SFAE-AV-UAS) PdM Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (SFAE-AV-UAS-TU)

DCMA (DCMAE-ETQB)

Contractor (TBD)