Attachment-3-QASP.docx
DOCX document 39 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- GSA-RFQ1787669
- Issued by
-
Defense Health Agency
About this file
This document is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for an Immunohematology Blood-Grouping Analyzer Cost Per Test Contract for the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth (NMCP). The QASP outlines performance standards and surveillance methods for monitoring the contractor's delivery of two automated immunohematology analyzers, including associated reagents, quality control materials, maintenance services, and consumables for the Transfusion Services Division.
The plan establishes key performance indicators with 100% compliance expectations across multiple areas, including equipment essential characteristics, delivery and installation requirements, OEM warranty compliance, training provisions, and equipment maintenance. The Contracting Officer (KO) is Matthew Teel from the Defense Health Agency, and specific contractor representative details will be completed at contract award. Surveillance will be conducted through quarterly reports, direct observation, and service reports, with methods designed to objectively evaluate the contractor's performance against predetermined acceptable quality levels.
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
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
QASP: Immunohematology Blood-Grouping Analyzer Cost Per Test Contract
QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN
Immunohematology Blood-Grouping Analyzer Cost Per Test Contract
Contractor’s Name: To Be Determined
Contract Number: To Be Determined
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. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.
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. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. 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 (KO) - The KO 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 KO shall also assure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.
Assigned KO: Matthew Teel Organization or Agency: Defense Health Agency Contracting Activity Telephone: To be provided at award.
Email: matthew.d.teel.civ@health.mil
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. At the conclusion of the contract or when requested by the KO, the COR shall provide documentation to the KO. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. The contractor shall refer any changes they deem may affect contract price, terms, or conditions to the KO for action.
Assigned COR: To be provided at award.
Telephone: To be provided at award.
Email: To be provided at award.
d. Other Key Government Personnel –
Not applicable.
3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES:
The following employees of the contractor serve as the contractor’s Points of Contact (POC) for this contract.
a. Technical POC Name: To be completed at award Telephone: To be completed at award Email: To be completed at award
b. Invoicing POC Name: To be completed at award Telephone: To be completed at award Email: To be completed at award
4. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Performance standards define desired services. The Government performs surveillance to determine if the contractor exceeds, meets or does not meet these standards.
The Performance Requirements Summary Matrix, shown below, includes performance standards. The Government shall use these standards to determine contractor performance and shall compare contractor performance to the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).
| Task |
| Indicator |
| Standard |
| Acceptable Quality Level |
| Method of Surveillance |
| Incentive |
| Ensure the analyzers and cost-per-test Meet the Essential Characteristics, SOW Section 5.1 |
| Quarterly Report |
| The vendor complied 100% with the essential characteristics during the full delivery period. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Direct Observation, Service Report |
| Past Performance |
| Delivery, Transportation, and Installation Requirements, SOW Section 6.1. |
| Quarterly Report |
| The vendor met 98% of the delivery, transportation, and installation requirements. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Direct Observation, Service Report |
| Past Performance |
| OEM Requirements, SOW Section 11.1 |
| Quarterly Report |
| The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) warranty and service were provided and maintained by the OEM. All software licensing, warranty, and service associated with the equipment/system are in accordance with the OEM terms and conditions. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Service Report |
| Past Performance |
| Training, SOW Section 12.0 |
| Quarterly Report |
| The vendor provided 100% of the user training, provided two (2) operational and two (2) service manuals, and provided off-site and/or on-site or online training as requested by NMCP for the full delivery period. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Service Report |
| Past Performance |
| Maintenance of the Equipment, SOW Section 13.0 |
| Quarterly Report |
| The vendor has provided 98% of the preventive and corrective maintenance of the equipment. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Service Report |
| Past Performance |
| Ensure the analyzers and cost-per-test Meet the Essential Characteristics, SOW Section 5.1 |
| Quarterly Report |
| The vendor complied 100% with the essential characteristics during the full delivery period. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Direct Observation, Service Report |
| Past Performance |
| Delivery, Transportation, and Installation Requirements, SOW Section 6.1. |
| Quarterly Report |
| The vendor met 98% of the delivery, transportation, and installation requirements. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Direct Observation, Service Report |
| Past Performance |
| OEM Requirements, SOW Section 11.1 |
| Quarterly Report |
| The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) warranty and service were provided and maintained by the OEM. All software licensing, warranty, and service associated with the equipment/system are in accordance with the OEM terms and conditions. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Service Report |
| Past Performance |
| Replacement Part, and Updates, SOW Section 14.0 |
| Quarterly Report |
| Replacement Parts/Updates were provided timely with <5% error rate |
| 100% Compliance |
| Service Report |
| Past Performance |
Vendor Furnished Property and Material, SOW Section 16.0
| Quarterly Report |
| Furnished Property and Material were provided IAW the SOW. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Service Report |
| Past Performance |
Vendor Report Requirements, SOW Section 17.0
| Quarterly Report |
| Report provided 100% of the required information IAW the SOW, with <5% errors / corrections needed. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Service Report |
| Past Performance |
Vendor Responsibility, SOW Section 18.0
| Quarterly Report |
| 100% Repairs and/or replacements of damaged Government-owned equipment and property due to the negligence of the vendor or its representatives was provided. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Service Report |
| Past Performance |
| Removal of Government Property, SOW Section 19.0 |
| Quarterly Report |
| Government property was removed IAW the SOW. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Service Report |
| Past Performance |
| Cybersecurity, SOW Section 21.0 |
| Quarterly Report |
| 98% of Cybersecurity requirements are met, and ATO obtained within 30 days. |
| 100% Compliance |
| Service Report |
| Past Performance |
5. INCENTIVES.
The Government shall use past performance as an incentive. Incentives shall be based on exceeding, meeting, or not meeting 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.
Regardless of the surveillance method, the COR shall always contact the contractor's task manager or on-site representative when a defect is identified and inform the manager of the specifics of the problem. The COR shall be responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance in meeting a specific performance standard/AQL.
a. DIRECT OBSERVATION. (Can be performed periodically or through 100% surveillance.)
1. Response to trouble calls.
2. Completion of repairs.
3. Written service report.
Surveillance results may be used as the basis for actions (to include payment deductions) against the contractor. In such cases, the Inspection of Services clause in the Contract becomes the basis for the KO’s actions.
7. RATINGS.
Metrics and methods are designed to determine if performance exceeds, meets, or does not meet a given standard and acceptable quality level. A rating scale shall be used to determine a positive, neutral, or negative outcome. The following ratings shall be used:
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| Performance significantly exceeds contract requirements to the Government’s benefit. |
| SATISFACTORY |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
| Performance does not meet contractual requirements. |
8. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE.
a. ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE.
The Government shall document positive performance. A report template is attached. Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for fixed fee payments, award fee payments, or other actions.
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 determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) and present it to the contractor's task manager or on-site representative. A CDR template is attached to this QASP.
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 COR. The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability.
Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, award fee nonpayment, or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.
9. FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENT.
a. Frequency of Measurement.
During contract/order performance, the COR shall take periodic measurements, as specified in the AQL column of the Performance Standards Summary Matrix and shall analyze whether the negotiated frequency of measurement is appropriate for the work being performed.
b. Frequency of Performance Assessment Meetings.
The COR shall provide a written assessment of contractor performance annually to the contractor.
(End)
PERFORMANCE REPORT
1. CONTRACT NUMBER: <insert number>
2. Prepared by: (Name of COR)
3. Date and time of observation:
4. Observation:
<Examples of items to include in a report are:
- Method of surveillance.
- How frequently you conducted surveillance.
- Surveillance results.
- Number of observations.>
Prepared by:
| _____________________________ | ________________ | |
| Signature – Contracting Officer’s Representative | Date |
CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT (CDR)
1. Contract Number: <insert number>
2. TO: (Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative) <insert name>
3. FROM: (Name of COR)
4. Date and time observed discrepancy:
5. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM:
<Describe in detail. Identify any attachments.>
5. Corrective action plan:
A written corrective action plan < is / is not > required.
< If a written corrective action plan is required include the following. > The written Corrective Action Plan will be provided to the undersigned not later than < # days after receipt of this
CDR. >
Prepared by:
| _____________________________ | ________________ | |
| Signature – Contracting Officer’s Representative | Date |
Received by:
| _____________________________ | ________________ | |
| Signature - Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative | Date |
<The COR may initiate a CDR at any time, including whenever the number of monthly recorded defects for a performance standard exceeds the allowable number of defects; anytime unacceptable performance is determined critical in nature and requires formal corrective action; and whenever an unfavorable trend is detected in contractor performance.>
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .