Attachment C - QASP Table.pdf
PDF 155 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MLRM External Clinical Review BPA
- Solicitation number
- 36C10X24R0038
About this file
This document is an excerpt from a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) table related to a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) solicitation for external clinical review services. The QASP table outlines various performance indicators, acceptable quality levels, and surveillance methods for evaluating the contractor's performance on tasks such as understanding technical needs, quality of products/services, responsiveness, timeliness of deliverables, and error rates.
The related federal contract opportunity is for the "MLRM External Clinical Review BPA" solicitation, which seeks to establish multiple BPAs for peer review, management review, medical advisory opinions, and other related services. The BPAs will have a 5-year period of performance. Quotes are due by July 02, 2024, at 10:00 AM ET, and all questions must be submitted by June 11, 2024, at 10:00 AM ET. The solicitation is issued on an unrestricted basis, allowing for full and open competition.
View the file
Other files
Show all 27
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
Task ID Indicator Standard Acceptable
Quality Level
Method of Surveillance
MEETING
TECHNICAL
NEEDS:
What level of understanding does the contractor have of the technical needs and the mission requirements?
Contract compliance and communications
100% Observation, teleconference
Overall quality of the products/ services provided.
Compilation of the quality metrics
95% Quarterly quality reporting (higher is better)
MANAGEMENT
How responsive is the contractor to the customer?
Communication to the customer promptly
95%
Observation, Meetings, communication modalities.
(higher is better
How well does the contractor notify COR in advance about potential milestones and scheduling problems so that COR has enough time to correct them?
Timeliness of communication 95%
Observation and communication (higher is better)
5 Timeliness of the deliverable
The written Deliverables as listed on the PWS delivered on time
95% Receipt of Deliverable (higher is better)
6 Error rate of submitted cases.
Cases returned to VENDOR for corrections.
Total number of cases returned to vendor, divided by total number of assigned cases to vendor
5% Quarterly Data aggregate
(smaller is better)
Data Metrics
7 How many cases were declined? --
2% Quarterly Data aggregate (Smaller is better)
Attachment C: Draft QASP table
Task ID Indicator Standard Acceptable
Quality Level
Method of Surveillance
8 How many cases are returned at secondary review
(OGC,
VISN/Facility) for inaccuracies?
1% Quarterly Data aggregate
Smaller is better
9 Meets 4-day reviewer assigning 95%
Quarterly Data aggregate Larger is better
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .