There are two cases in this project. Below are the details on the two cases in the SPC Project (Based on Chapter 6S Statistical Process Control). In this module, there is an Excel spreadsheet labeled SPC Project - BLANK New_2019 that has the sample data and includes spaces to add your SPC Control Chart data (for Case 1) and includes the data to build the SPC Charts in Case 2. That Excel file should be submitted during Week 7. Make sure to substitute your name for the word BLANK when you save the Excel file.Case 1: Frito-Lay Salt TestA. Read the first case (Frito-Lay) description below.B. Watch the video in this module for the Frito-Lay case (the video must be watched in its entirety to get full credit).C. You must also submit a Word document containing a memo to Angela McCormack and answering the additional two questions.Case 1 DescriptionFrito-Lay, the multi-billion-dollar snack food giant, produces billions of pounds of product every year at its dozens of U.S. and Canadian plants. From the farming of potatoes-in Florida, North Carolina, and Michigan-to factory and to retail stores, the ingredients and final product of Lay's chips, for example, are inspected at least 11 times: in the field, before unloading at the plant, after washing and peeling, at the sizing station, at the fryer, after seasoning when bagged (for weight), at carton filling, in the warehouse, and as they are placed on the store shelf by Frito-Lay personnel. Similar inspections take place for its other famous products, including Cheetos, Fritos, Ruffles, and Tostitos.In addition to these employee inspections, the firm uses proprietary vision systems to look for defective potato chips. Chips are pulled off the high-speed line and checked twice if the vision system senses them to be too brown.The company follows the very strict standards of the American Institute of Baking (AIB), standards that are much tougher than those of the U.S Food and Drug Administration. Two unannounced AIB site visits per year keep Frito-Lay's plant on their toes. Scores, consistently in the "excellent" range, are posted, and every employee knows exactly how the plant is doing.There are two key metrics in Frito-Lay's continuous improvement quality program: (1) total customer complaints (measured on a complaints per million bag basis) and (2) hourly or daily statistical process control scores (for oil, moisture, seasoning, and salt content, for chip thickness, for fryer temperature, and for weight).In the Florida plant, Angela McCormack, who holds engineering and MBA degrees, oversees a 15-member quality assurance staff. They watch all aspects of quality, including training employees on the factory floor, monitoring automated processing equipment, and developing and updating statistical process control (SPC) charts. The upper and lower control limits for one check point, salt content in Lay's chip, are 2.22% (UCL) and 1.98% (LCL), respectively. To see exactly how the limits are created using SPC, watch the Frito Lay Control Charts video in the Module below that accompanies this case.In the Excel document (below in this Module) you are going to create a new set of UCL and LCL measurements based on the below sample data and using the provided population parameter for standard deviation. Calculate the measurements and show your work.Angela is evaluating a new salt process delivery system and wants to know if the upper and lower control limits at 3 standard deviations for the new system will meet the upper and lower controls specifications currently used (2.22 and 1.98). The population standard deviation is s = .07 and each sample is n=4. In a Word document, write a memo to Angela explaining whether or not the new salination process (from which we obtained the sample data) is delivering a new set of UCL/LCL measurements that is within the specifications set by the current set of control limits. In other words, does the new set of UCL/LCL measurement exceed the prior limits (meaning it is unacceptable) or equals or is less than the current specifications?Additionally, in the same Word document, answer the following two critical thinking questions about Frito-Lay's current quality process. Question 1: How much of an improvement in variability did Frito-Lay make by implementing SPC? Question 2: What are the steps Karen Engels and Barbara Boudreau go through as part of a testing cycle?The data (in percent) from the initial trial samples using the new salting process are:Sample 1:1.982.112.152.06Sample 2:1.992.02.081.99Sample 3:2.202.102.202.05Sample 4:2.182.012.231.98Sample 5:2.012.082.142.16Case 2: Stensil Fertilizer and Chemical Co. Inorganic Fertilizer TestingA. Read the second case (Stensil) description below (also found in the Excel file, second tab).B. Watch the second video in this module which explains how to build an SPC chart in Excel (the video must be watched in its entirety to get full credit).C. You must also submit a Word document containing a memo to Bill Evans, Quality Control Manager for Stensil.Case 2 DescriptionStensil Fertilizer and Chemical Company produces both organic and inorganic fertilizers. Organic fertilizers are generally safe, but inorganic fertilizers are carefully monitored by the EPA due to the presence of hazardous waste materials (hazmat). Most bags contain some hazardous content, but theoretically there should be none. The EPA allowable specification is 90 parts per million (PPM). The quality control department at Stensil feels that there is no problem with hazardous material content, which has been averaging just over 50 PPM. The production department estimates that a substantial investment would be required to lower the amount of this contaminant. These two departments, after consulting with the marketing department and the EPA, suggest that a control chart be set up to monitor hazmat content. Five samples will be tested per day and plotted as one point on the chart. Use the data in Table 1 to set up the control limits. Then, after the limits are in place for this process, use Table 2 to determine whether or not the process remains in control for the week of September 6—10.The Excel file includes a second tab for the Stensil Fertilizer Case (Case 2). This is the data you need for the problem. Build an appropriate SPC X-bar Chart and R-chart for the Table 1 data on this tab of the Excel worksheet.Then, test to determine whether the Table 2 data indicates the process is under control for that period. Show your work for this part in the same Excel worksheet and submit it.Assuming the role of Quality Control Analyst, write a memo (using Word) to the Manager of Quality Control for Stensil Fertilizer & Chemical Company (Bill Evans) explaining the process you went through and making a recommendation regarding current hazmat levels in Stensil's fertilizer.

Your company’s marketing department promotes the products and interacts with the customers, sales force, and supply chain. They are also in charge of forecasting sales for the company. In a PowerPoint presentation that you will show at the next corporate board meeting, analyze the marketing strategies used by the company. Your presentation should be 7 – 10 slides andshould have a minimum of 100 – 150 words in the Notes area of each slide tofurther provide substance and support for the outline information on the slide.Please use a minimum of three outside scholarly sources for support. Inaddition, you must record your actual presentation to show your oralcommunication skills.

STUDENT 1 (Jena): Record keeping and maintaining an adequate documentation trail for auditing purposes is essential for all forms of contracting. However, ensuring proper documentation is especially important in contingency environment. According to the Defense Contingency Contracting Handbook (2017), “because normal checks and balances and electronic administration tools might not exist right away in contingency environments, Contingency Contracting Officers (CCOs) should put due diligence in maintaining hard-copy contract files with proper documentation to tell the story of the respective acquisition” (p. 199). The establishment of effective administrative produces, audit capabilities and maintenance is high recommended as early as possible in contingency situations. This can enhance audit supportability and minimize any potential fraud, waste or abuse problems. In different contingency settings CCOs should become familiar with local acquisition instructions (AIs) and standard operating procedures (SOPs). This allows CCOs to gain knowledge about contract support administration for the given area of responsibility (AOR). According to the Defense Contingency Contracting Handbook (2017), “contract files must be organized and sufficiently annotated to document the actions taken and the supporting rationale for the entire procurement process” (pg. 201). The CCO must do their best to ensure that all document contract file tells the complete story of the acquisition life cycle from raw material to disposition. It is imperative that CCOs understand that their roles and responsibilities to not end with the award of a contract and purchase and delivery orders. Improper contract administrating can ultimately waste the efforts put forth on planning, describing, and funding customer requirements (Defense Contingency Contracting Handbook, 2017)References DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTINGENCY BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT GUIDEBOOK . (2014, September). Retrieved June 8, 2020, from https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/US...STUDENT 2 (Derek): The risks of a lack of contingency contract administration described in the opening line of the executive summary for the 2011 commission on wartime contracting final report to Congress. At least $31 Billion, and possibly as much as $60 Billion, has been lost to contract waste in America’s contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report indicates that much of the contingency contract waste was avoidable if contract administration efforts had been adequate. Such figures undermine programs, diverts money, and undermines public confidence in the US government’s fiduciary duty to spend taxpayer money. Another risk of insufficient CCAS aside from high costs are violations of human trafficking standards. In particular, when contractors in contingency areas look to reduce their labor costs by employing third-country nationals or local nationals who are vulnerable to such violations.Then there is a threat to safety and life when contractor performance is not properly inspected. The best example of this was KBR’s negligent performance in properly constructing shower facilities in Iraq resulted in a soldier electrocuted in the shower.When contractor performance is not managed correctly, and contractor service falters or fails in the contingency environment, soldiers are left unsupported and vulnerable. In such cases, military personnel and resources end up being used to perform tasks that were funded to be completed by contractors. CCAS should not be an afterthought or resource at the last minute; contracts that do not have a robustly resourced CCAS plan should not be awarded. There must also be a reasonable expectation as to whether or not you are asking civilian contractors to perform inherently military tasks. These are tasks that only a well-armed military force could perform in a non-permissive environment.The risks of a lack of contingency contract administration described in the opening line of the executive summary for the 2011 commission on wartime contracting final report to Congress. At least $31 Billion, and possibly as much as $60 Billion, has been lost to contract waste in America’s contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report indicates that much of the contingency contract waste was avoidable if contract administration efforts had been adequate. Such figures undermine programs, diverts money, and undermines public confidence in the US government’s fiduciary duty to spend taxpayer money. Another risk of insufficient CCAS aside from high costs are violations of human trafficking standards. In particular, when contractors in contingency areas look to reduce their labor costs by employing third-country nationals or local nationals who are vulnerable to such violations.Then there is a threat to safety and life when contractor performance is not properly inspected. The best example of this was KBR’s negligent performance in properly constructing shower facilities in Iraq resulted in a soldier electrocuted in the shower.When contractor performance is not managed correctly, and contractor service falters or fails in the contingency environment, soldiers are left unsupported and vulnerable. In such cases, military personnel and resources end up being used to perform tasks that were funded to be completed by contractors. CCAS should not be an afterthought or resource at the last minute; contracts that do not have a robustly resourced CCAS plan should not be awarded. There must also be a reasonable expectation as to whether or not you are asking civilian contractors to perform inherently military tasks. These are tasks that only a well-armed military force could perform in a non-permissive environment.The risks of a lack of contingency contract administration described in the opening line of the executive summary for the 2011 commission on wartime contracting final report to Congress. At least $31 Billion, and possibly as much as $60 Billion, has been lost to contract waste in America’s contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report indicates that much of the contingency contract waste was avoidable if contract administration efforts had been adequate. Such figures undermine programs, diverts money, and undermines public confidence in the US government’s fiduciary duty to spend taxpayer money. Another risk of insufficient CCAS aside from high costs are violations of human trafficking standards. In particular, when contractors in contingency areas look to reduce their labor costs by employing third-country nationals or local nationals who are vulnerable to such violations.Then there is a threat to safety and life when contractor performance is not properly inspected. The best example of this was KBR’s negligent performance in properly constructing shower facilities in Iraq resulted in a soldier electrocuted in the shower.When contractor performance is not managed correctly, and contractor service falters or fails in the contingency environment, soldiers are left unsupported and vulnerable. In such cases, military personnel and resources end up being used to perform tasks that were funded to be completed by contractors. CCAS should not be an afterthought or resource at the last minute; contracts that do not have a robustly resourced CCAS plan should not be awarded. There must also be a reasonable expectation as to whether or not you are asking civilian contractors to perform inherently military tasks. These are tasks that only a well-armed military force could perform in a non-permissive environment.vSTUDENT 3 (Chris): Contract administration is an important aspect of the holistic view of contracting, it ensures that schedules are kept, contractors are compensated and both parties (government and contractor) adhere to the agreed upon terms of the contract. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) is responsible for providing this phase of contracting. Contract administration according to the DCCH (2017) “involves record keeping and ensuring the documentation is adequate for an audit trail” (p.198). If contract administration is applied during a contingency then it is known as contingency contract administration services (CCAS). CCAS may be quite perplexing during the formative weeks or months of a contingency, depending if the area of operations is a mature (established systems) environment or immature (no established systems) enviroment. If the area is the latter of the two then this could lead to several risks such as; Field order officers (FOO) only using cash, vendors not providing receipts for services completed and vendors receiving advance payment but failing to return. Allowing the FOOs to pay for everything with cash may lead to the temptation to defraud the government and vendors located in a immature locations usually do not provide receipts. DCCH (2017) states that “overseas vendors operate on a cash-and-carry basis and are not in the habit of furnishing paper receipts or using invoicing procedures “(p.205). The aforementioned risk did not include issues that may be associated with military units or the contingency contracting officer (CCO). Depending on the size of the contingency, military units normally rotate every 3 to 6 months depending on the military service. This may cause an issue with the CCAS if the leaving unit did not close out or turnover existing contracts during the relief in place/transfer of authority (RIP/TOA). According to the DCCH “Such responsibility transfers include property books and the assignment of CORs and FOOs” (p.206). If the proper turnover was not conducted correctly and CCAS was not involved this could lead to missing documentation which is a key aspect of contract administration. CCOs may encounter the same issue regarding proper documentation while dealing with vendors in an immature location, while rapidly establishing logistic lines in support of the geographic combatant commander (GCC). This could include not completing all the paperwork and submitting incomplete documentation to the CCAS. The CCO must ensure that this does not happen because as stated by the DCCH (2017) “the contract file tells the acquisition story” (p.207). Contract administration under the tutelage of the DCMA, applied correctly provide the depository for each acquisition story ever written.r/ChrisReferencesAccuquisition Policy, D. &. (2017). Defense contingency contracting handbook. Washington, DC: Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Contingency Contracting