36C24519Q0568-002.docx

DOCX document 58 KB Posted

Attached to
Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance (ROQS) Program Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
36C24519Q0568
Issued by
Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Veterans Integrated Service Network 5

About this file

36C24519Q0568 S02 QASP - VHA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program_FINAL.docx

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance (ROQS) Program, newest first.
File Type Posted
36C24519C0242-000.docx DOCX document
36C24519Q0568-0002000.docx DOCX document
36C24519Q0568-0001000.docx DOCX document
36C24519Q0568-001.pdf PDF
36C24519Q0568-000.docx DOCX document
36C24519Q0568-002.docx DOCX document
36C24519Q0568-004.docx DOCX document
36C24519Q0568-003.docx DOCX document
36C24519Q0568-000.docx DOCX document
36C24519Q0568-001.pdf PDF
36C24519Q0568-003.docx DOCX document
36C24519Q0568-004.docx DOCX document
Show all 12

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Contract#: X-X-X – VHA Radiation Oncology Quality Surviellance Program

€The contractor will be evaluated in accordance with the following:

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:

· What will be monitored.

· How monitoring will take place.

· Who will conduct the monitoring.

· How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.

This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance.

This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. However, the Government shall coordinate changes with the contractor through contract modification. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

2. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

a. Contracting Officer (CO) – The CO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The CO shall also assure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

Assigned CO:

Organization or Agency:

b. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and shall assure proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR shall keep a quality assurance file. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf.

Assigned COR: Edwinette Moses Organization or Agency: Veterans Health Administration, Office of Specialty Care Services, National Radiation Oncology Program (10P11H)

3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES

The following employee(s) of the contractor serve as the contractor’s program manager(s) for this contract.

Primary: Edwinette Moses, Edwinette.moses@va.gov, (804) 675-5000 x. 3002

4. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The contractor is responsible for performance of ALL terms and conditions of the contract. CORs will provide contract progress reports quarterly to the CO reflecting performance on this plan and all other aspects of the resultant contract. The performance standards outlined in this QASP shall be used to determine the level of contractor performance in the elements defined. Performance standards define desired services. The Government performs surveillance to determine the level of Contractor performance to these standards.

The Performance Requirements are listed below in Section 7. The Government shall use these standards to determine contractor performance and shall compare contractor performance to the standard and assign a rating. At the end of the performance period, these ratings will be used, in part, to establish the past performance of the contractor on the contract.

5. INCENTIVES/DEDUCTS

The Government shall use past performance and exercising options as incentives. Incentives shall be based on ratings received on the performance standards.

6. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE

Various methods exist to monitor performance. The COR shall use the surveillance methods listed below in the administration of this QASP.

a. DIRECT OBSERVATION. 100% surveillance - All patient safety incidents will be reviewed for timely reporting.

b. PERIODIC INSPECTION. Inspections scheduled and reported quarterly per COR delegation or as needed.

c. VERIFICATION AND/OR DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. Contractor will submit all documentation required to complete inspections for VA and Medical Center quality improvement programs and activities.

7. PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Measures
PWS

Reference Performance Requirement

Standard
Acceptable Quality Level
Surveillance

Method

Incentive
Disincentive
Subject matter Expert (SME) panels
§4.1
Contractor will select SMEs for diseases site panels
SMEs are nationally recognized for their expertise
100%
Required approval of the National Director, Radiation Oncology Program
Favorable contractor performance evaluations
Unfavorable contractor performance evaluations
Define Clinical Performance measures (CPM) for Breast, Head&Neck, and CNS cancers
§4.2
Contractor will define CPMs to assess the quality of radiotherapy for

Breast, Head&Neck, and CNS cancers

CPMs are based on current standards of practice for each disease site
100%
Prior to Contractor’s retrieval of data from VAMCs, National Radiation Oncology Program staff, with project manager, will review & approve the data elements & metrics delineated by NROP staff.
Favorable contractor performance evaluations
Unfavorable contractor performance evaluations
Define performance rate for each CPM
§4.3
Contractor will define consensus-based acceptable performance rates for each defined CPM
Performance rates are consensus- and evidence-based.
90%
Retrievable data will be monitored & examined by NROP physics staff.
Favorable contractor performance evaluations
Unfavorable contractor performance evaluations
Define clinical and dosimetry data elements and decision trees required to score each CPM
§4.4
Contractor will determine data elements & metrics required to evaluate the approved clinical performance measures.
Each CPM is scorable using the defined decision tree
100%
Approval of each report.
Favorable contractor performance evaluations
Unfavorable contractor performance evaluations

8. RATINGS

Metrics and methods are designed to determine rating for a given standard and acceptable quality level. The following ratings shall be used:

EXCEPTIONAL:
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, you should identify multiple significant events in each category and state how it was a benefit to the GOVERNMENT. However a singular event could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

VERY GOOD:
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Note: To justify a Very Good rating, you should identify a significant event in each category and state how it was a benefit to the GOVERNMENT. Also there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

SATISFACTORY:
Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Note: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. Also there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

MARGINAL:
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
Note: To justify Marginal performance, you should identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the GOVERNMENT. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of thecontractual deficiency (e.g. Management, Quality, Safety or Environmental Deficiency Report or letter).
UNSATISFACTORY:
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
Note: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, you should identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the GOVERNMENT. However, a singular problem could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g. Management, Quality, Safety orEnvironmental Deficiency Reports, or letters).

9. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE

a. The Government shall document positive and/or negative performance. Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action and preparing annual past performance using CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CPAR).

b. If contractor performance does not meet the Acceptable Quality level, the CO shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the CO shall document the discussion and place it in the contract file. When the COR and the CO determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and present it to CO. The CO will in turn review and will present to the contractor's program manager for corrective action.

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR will specify if the contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CDR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the CO. The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability. The CO shall also assure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment. The CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance and the acceptability of the Contractor’s corrective action plan.

Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action deemed necessary by the CO.

CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT

1. CONTRACT NUMBER
2. REPORT NUMBER FOR THIS DISCREPANCY
3. TO: (Contracting Officer)
4. FROM: (Name of COR)

5. DATES

a. CDR PREPARED

b. RETURNED BY CONTRACTOR:
c. ACTION COMPLETE

6. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM (Describe in detail. Include reference to PWS Directive; attach continuation sheet if necessary.)

7. SIGNATURE OF COR
Date:
8. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER
Date:
9a. TO (Contracting Officer)
9a. FROM (Contractor)

10. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE, CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. (Cite applicable quality control program procedures or new procedures. Attach continuation sheet(s) if necessary.)

11. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE
Date:

12. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION. (Acceptance, partial acceptance, reflection. Attach continuation sheet(s) if necessary.)

13. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (Acceptance, partial acceptance, reflection. Attach continuation sheet(s) if necessary.)

14. CLOSE OUT

NAME
TITLE
SIGNATURE
DATE

CONTRACTOR NOTIFIED

COR

CONTRACTING OFFICER

10. FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENT

a. Frequency of Measurement.

The frequency of measurement is defined in the contract or otherwise in this document. The government (COR or CO) will periodically analyze whether the frequency of surveillance is appropriate for the work being performed.

b. Frequency of Performance Reporting.

The COR shall communicate with the Contractor and will provide written reports to the Contracting Officer quarterly (or as outlined in the contract or COR delegation) to review Contractor performance.

11. COR AND CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QASP

SIGNED:

COR DATE

SIGNED:

CONTRACTOR DATE

File details come from the government source that posted it.