ATTACHMENT 3 - QASP.docx
DOCX document 40 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C24822Q0623
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| ATTACHMENT 4 - Vendor File.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT 2 - Limitation of Subcontracting Certification.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT 1 - PWS.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C24822Q0623_1.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
Measure
PWS
Para.
Performance Requirement
| Standard |
| Acceptable Quality Level |
| Surveillance |
Method
| Incentive |
| Disincentive/ |
Deduct
True Beam data commissioning and validation for Eclipse
| 5.1 |
| Beam Data measurements and validation measurements based on guidelines for Eclipse Treatment Planning System |
| 100% |
| 100% |
| Compare measured data with reference data to validate accuracy of measurements performed |
| Favorable contactor performance evaluation. |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation |
| Eclipse configuration and testing |
| 5.2 |
| Model the AAA and Acuros algorithm for three (3) standard proton energies |
| 100% |
| 100% |
| Compare representative measured commissioned data with standard modeled data |
| Favorable contactor performance evaluation |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation |
True Beam data commissioning and validation for Pinnacle
| 5.3 |
| Perform beam data measurements and validation measurements based on guidelines for Pinnacle Treatment Planning System. |
| 100% |
| 100% |
| Compare measured data with reference data to validate accuracy of measurements performed |
| Favorable contractor performance evaluation |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation |
IMRT (Image Guided Radiation Therapy) and VMAT (Volumized Measured ) commissioning and tests
5.5
| IMRT and VMAT commissioning tests and the configuration or validation of the related optimization algorithms |
| 100% |
| 100% |
| Provide report summarizing the IMRT and VMST commissioning test results |
| Favorable contactor performance evaluation. |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation |
| Brainlab beam data commissioning |
| . |
5.6
| Perform beam data measurements according to Branlab beam data guidelines |
| 100% |
| 100% |
| Provide report of beam data measurements and algorithm configuration tests |
| Favorable contactor performance evaluation. |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation |
| Brainlab simulated test plans |
| 5.7 |
| Perform absolute dose measurements and plan delivery tests using a head phantom and pin-point chamber system to evaluate the accuracy of the dose delivered for 6FFF and 10FFF. |
| 100% |
| 100% |
| Provide report summarizing the tests performed |
| Favorable contractor performance evaluations |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation |
| True Beam OBI physics QA overview |
| 5.8 |
| Demonstrate calibration procedures |
| 100% |
| 100% |
| Provide a demonstration of the typical OBI physics and QA procedures |
| Favorable contractor performance evaluations. |
| Unfavorable contractor performance evaluation |
Attachment 3 - QASP
Attachment 3 - QASP
RATINGS:
Metrics and methods are designed to determine rating for a given standard and acceptable quality level. The following ratings shall be used:
| EXCEPTIONAL: |
| Contractor always meets the standard. 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: |
| Contractor almost always meets the standard, always performs over the Acceptable Quality Level. 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: |
| Contractor occasionally meets the standard, but more often meets the Acceptable Quality Level. 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: | |
| Contractor most often meets the Acceptable Quality Level, occasionally does not meet the Acceptable Quality Level and CDRs have been reported. 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: |
| Contractor has history of not meeting Acceptable Quality Level. Significant efforts have been made to bring Contractor into performance. 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).
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.
c. 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.
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.
COR AND CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QASP:
SIGNED:
Margaret Peggi Lampasso, Administrative Officer DATE
SIGNED:
CONTRACTOR NAME/TITLE DATE
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .