36C24718Q0713-004.doc
DOC document 94 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C24718Q0713
About this file
36C24718Q0713 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.doc
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C24718Q0713-000.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C24718Q0713-006.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C24718Q0713-005.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C24718Q0713-002.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C24718Q0713-003.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C24718Q0713-001.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- 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)
REVISED 12/14/2017
2237: 521-18-3-072-0199
Contract Title: Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Equipment/System to Perform Molecular Diagnostic Patient Testing Described Herein Through a Cost-Per-Test Contract/Task Order
Contract# ________________ Contract Description: The Birmingham Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (BVAMC) has a requirement for a fully automated PCR equipment/system to perform molecular diagnostic patient testing through a cost-per-test (CPT) contract. CPT includes PCR equipment and necessary peripherals (printer, uninterrupted power supply, bar code reader(s), etc.) to perform and report molecular testing (specified below), delivery and installation, shipping and handling, all reagent/kit products, specimen collection kits, training for Government personnel (includes airfare, room, board, and training material), all necessary maintenance and service to keep the equipment in good operating condition (this includes both preventive maintenance and emergency repairs), and supplies/materials necessary to perform correlation study testing that is prescribed by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI).
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. 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: Department of Veterans Affairs, Network 7 Contracting Office (NCO) Birmingham VA Medical Center
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: Lee Ann McCurry, leeann.mccurry@va.gov Organization or Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs, Birmingham VA Medical Center
3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES
The following employee(s) of the contractor serve as the contractor’s program manager(s) for this contract.
Primary:
Alternate:
Organization or Agency:
4. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The contractor is responsible for performance of ALL terms and conditions of the contract. COR 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 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.
| REFERENCE |
| REQUIREMENT |
| STANDARD |
| ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVEL |
| METHOD OF MONITORING |
| DISINCENTIVES |
| 9.3 |
| Delivery & Installation by technical support specialist(s) |
| Delivery & installation are completed in specified timeframe |
| 90% |
| Validated user complaints, Monitoring |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation and/or issuance of Contractor Discrepancy Report (CDR) |
9.5
| Provide technical support specialist(s) to assist in validation/correlation studies |
| Validation / correlation comparison data are sufficient to satisfy College of American Pathologist (CAP) accreditation standards |
| 90% for validation / correlation support |
100% for CAP compliance
| Validated user complaints, Monitoring |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation and/or issuance of Contractor Discrepancy Report (CDR) |
8.2
| Provide education and training on site |
| Basic operating and maintenance training during installations or updates to the equipment |
| 90% |
| Validated user complaints, Monitoring |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation and/or issuance of Contractor Discrepancy Report (CDR) |
| 8.1 |
| Provide initial comprehensive off-site training program |
| Initial off-site training for key operator(s) per analyzer coordinated with and timely to the equipment installation |
| 90% |
| Validated user complaints, Monitoring |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation and/or issuance of Contractor Discrepancy Report (CDR) |
| 5 |
| Provide all necessary supplies, as requested |
| Supplies are delivered as requested |
| 85% |
| Validated user complaints, Monitoring |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation and/or issuance of Contractor Discrepancy Report (CDR) |
| 6 |
| Provide maintenance and repair, as needed |
| Technical support is provided by phone and on-site support is provided, when necessary |
| 90% |
| Validated user complaints, Monitoring |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation and/or issuance of Contractor Discrepancy Report (CDR) |
| 6.10, 16, & 17, |
| Information Security and Privacy |
| Technical support, etc. must comply with all Information Security and Privacy regulations to include HIPAA and Privacy Act, as applicable |
| 100% |
| Validated user complaints, Monitoring |
| Suspension or termination of all physical and/or access privileges. |
5. INCENTIVES
The Government shall use exercise of option period and past performance 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.
· Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR/COR designated inspector (Microbiology Supervisor and/or Microbiology Lead Medical Technologist.
· Validated user complaints (Relies on BVAMC Medical Technologist employees who operate the contractor’s equipment to identify deficiencies) Complaints are investigated and validated, as applicable.
7. 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 the contractual 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 or Environmental Deficiency Reports, or letters).
8. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE
a. Acceptable Performance
The Government shall document positive performance. Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action.
b. Unacceptable Performance
When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR 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.
Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action deemed necessary by the CO.
9. 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 negotiated 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.
10. COR AND CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QASP
SIGNED:
COR – Lee Ann McCurry, P&LMS Administrative Officer Date
SIGNED:
CONTRACTOR NAME / TITLE
Date
File details come from the government source that posted it.