Major Defense Contractor issued a DCMA Level III CAR

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
This article describes how failure to address on-going quality concerns led a representative from DCMA to escalate the issue to a Level III CAR.

According to the article,
A Level III CAR is a serious action just one step below the possibility of suspension or termination of contract. The DCMA Guidebook's "Navy Special Emphasis Programs (NSEPs) Quality Assurance Representative's (QAR's) Instruction" as revised on March 30, 2005 discusses Level III CARs in 3.11.3.3 and subordinate passages:
"3.11.3.3 - A Level III shall be used to call attention to serious contractual non-compliances. A Level III will be used when prior requests for corrective action have been ineffective in obtaining contractor resolution of a non-conformance and the contractor will not take additional or appropriate action. Due to the seriousness of the issue, there may be occurrences when a Level III corrective action request may be appropriate yet prior Level I or II corrective action requests may not have been issued. This will not be a normal practice. Level III CARs are normally supported with prior issued Level II CARs."
 

Attachments

  • dp-DCMA-Sikorsky-11222006.pdf
    129.1 KB · Views: 460
D

Don Palmer

Management Oversight Is Out Of Control

Ouch! I would not want to be in their shoes.

Nor would I.


Indeed, most unfortunate for the VP (although some poor soul had to get his head chopped off) who got fired as well as the implicated facility site. I’ve bulleted some (IMHO) key elements of ‘The Letter’ that jumped off the pages of this article.

• “The reactive nature of…oversight…is evidence of the lack of adequate prior planning and is of great concern because…assembly is continuing despite the numerous issues raised regarding proper work instructions and training.”

• “The bottom line is that quality is deteriorating,…and becoming indefensible.”

• “…appearing that management oversight is out of control and is driving quality escapes that are mounting in seriousness.”

• “Rapid…transformation and its poor execution, along with the company culture…were the root cause of the quality defects.”

• “The drive to outsource…is increasing the number of quality defects.”

• “The company’s own onsite inspections of their…facility have only served to reinforce and expand the findings of those CARs." (e.g. the issuance of several Level II CARs)

Point of interest – to the ‘DCMA Letter’ Reference: ISO 9001:2000. Further digging on my part revealed that it seems the site facility had recently received certification to AS 9100 / ISO 9001:2000 from their registrar. No doubt, a good quality management system was in place.

But according to the person that wrote ‘The Letter’, “It appears that management oversight is out of control and is driving quality escapes that are mounting in seriousness.” The conundrum: “management…out of control”.

:2cents: As long as ‘management culture’ in corporate America goes unchallenged and unchanged, ‘quality culture’ in corporate America remains suppressed.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
As an 18 year government contract veteran I can honestly say "been there, done that"

I have particular and specific hands on with the 'hawk myself and it always left a bit to be desired. The airframe is hard as nails, but the entire "system" has always been a tad sensitive for its operating environment (as compared to the Bell 204/205 size airframes).

I would like to know what real quality problems are (from an airman's perspective).
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
As an 18 year government contract veteran I can honestly say "been there, done that"
Randy, do you mean that you were in the receiving end of a level III DCMA CAR? Or were you in the issuing end?

Or do you mean that you flew and maintained the birds? What do you mean by "been there, done that"?
 
D

Don Palmer

Randy, do you mean that you were in the receiving end of a level III DCMA CAR? Or were you in the issuing end?

Or do you mean that you flew and maintained the birds? What do you mean by "been there, done that"?

:topic: We're all familiar with the phrase, "Been there, done that". It is often pronounced by the world-weary or self-proclaimed sophisticates who feel that there's nothing new under the sun.

We all know how much Randy travels. I think he might be a bit 'world-weary', and that he would vehemently deny being a 'self-proclaimed sophisticate'. :cool::notme:


Back On Topic: Sidney, given the timeline of events about the original article and Level III CAR 'Letter', can you at this time, offer any insight as to new or recent developments?

For instance, more than 30 days have gone by since DCMA "expect[ed] formal response [to the letter]. Do you have any thoughts as to what the response was?

Would you know whether operations were ceased at the facility site until all processes are/were brought under control and first article inspections are/were conducted?

Do you know if there were any certificate actions taken by FAA or Registrar?
 

Randy

Super Moderator
Randy, do you mean that you were in the receiving end of a level III DCMA CAR? Or were you in the issuing end?

Or do you mean that you flew and maintained the birds? What do you mean by "been there, done that"?

I flew and maintained the birds.

I also have been party to a system where the sole basis of being a manager or project leader rested on prior military status (this may be part of the issue here) The ownership of this contract delivery might be a member of the "good old boy's club" and has worked under the assumption that accountabilty could be passed on like responsibility (a teflon coating so to speak)

A common term for the Blackhawk was "twin engine, four bladed, lawn dart". I personally experienced the reason for that term once.
 
Last edited:
D

DsqrdDGD909

For instance, more than 30 days have gone by since DCMA "expect[ed] formal response [to the letter]. Do you have any thoughts as to what the response was?


http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2006/december/12_29_1.html
PENTAGON RESOLVES BLACK HAWK DISPUTE



WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The U.S. Defense Department has withdrawn its threat to penalize a company that sells utility helicopters to the Middle East.

The Pentagon has closed a formal complaint regarding the Black Hawk and Seahawk helicopters, sold both to the U.S. military and Middle East clients. Both helicopters have been manufactured by Sikorsky Aircraft, which had been threatened with penalties by the Pentagon.

In mid-December, Sikorsky submitted a plan to improve quality control of the Black Hawk and Seahawk, plagued by problems in the rear rotor tail. The Pentagon said it was withdrawing its complaint, known as Level III Corrective Action Request.

"Sikorsky did respond with a plan to address the government's concern and this plan adequately addresses the issues as stated in the CAR," Ann Jensis-Dale, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said.

=============================================
Sikorsky Settles Quality Issue

by Quality Digest http://www.insidequality.com/IQedit...&-session=ACCESS:45D07A4A02cf329C70hgiPi3B739

In November 2006, the Pentagon sent a letter to Sikorsky Aircraft criticizing its management for quality control and delays in the production of Black Hawk helicopters.

Sikorsky, a division of United Technologies, subsequently submitted a plan for addressing the concerns in a Level III corrective action request (CAR) issued in November, according to the Hartford Courant.

“Sikorsky did respond with a plan to address the government’s concern and this plan adequately addresses the issues as stated in the CAR,” said Ann Jensis-Dale, a defense contract spokeswoman.

The company will establish a training program for its Florida Black Hawk subcontractor that will teach employees the Sikorsky production system, and it will examine what its subcontractors actually do in the production of military helicopters.

The aircraft unit has increased the number of quality control inspectors at Crestview Aerospace Corp. from six to 15 and now does extra inspections of some key parts, such as rotor blade connections and flight controls.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Randy

Super Moderator
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2006/december/12_29_1.html

The aircraft unit has increased the number of quality control inspectors at Crestview Aerospace Corp. from six to 15 and now does extra inspections of some key parts, such as rotor blade connections and flight controls.

Pretty interesting, that used to be one of the good points, the anti-torque system and its control (hyd w/cable back up).

One of the major problems we had to counter was stabilator failure, which was when the aircraft would go into an unannounced nose down attitude (dive).:mg: At low altitude and at speed this would be fatal, at high altitude it could be recoverable (as experienced by me), but you'd need clean underwear afterwards.:lol:

What is escaping me is how or what caused a breakdown in the QDR process (Quality Discrepancy Report). I have personally filed QDR's that had completely stopped both production and overhaul activities on aircraft components when I was a Lockheed QA/QC. One specific QDR pertained to an electrical component that had been outsourced to a foriegn company that never worked right and had caused a couple of small electrical fires onboard. Trust me when I tell you there is no such thing as a small fire in flight when you're trying to open the panel being blinded and choked by the phosgene given off from burning insulation.:nope: Your fun meter gets pegged real quick.:yes:
 
Top Bottom