ATTACHMENT D.2 - QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN.docx
DOCX document 58 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C24926Q0154
About this file
This is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for onsite mobile lithotripsy services at James H. Quillen VA Medical Center under solicitation 36C24926Q0154. The QASP establishes systematic methods for evaluating contractor performance across five key performance areas: timeliness, quality care, patient safety, and patient satisfaction. The plan designates Contracting Officer Olonzo Haynes and Contracting Specialist Rebecca Espinoza at the Network Contracting Office in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, with Contracting Officer's Representative Joshua P. Hutchins and Dr. Greg Champney providing technical oversight at the medical center's Surgical Service.
The QASP defines six specific performance requirements with measurable standards and acceptable quality levels. Equipment must be prepared for first procedures by 8:00 AM daily (95% compliance), all technicians must maintain current certifications (100% compliance), patients shall not require retreatment within 90 days due to stone-related problems (95% compliance), and all patient safety incidents must be reported within 24 hours (100% compliance). The plan employs multiple surveillance methods including direct observation, periodic inspection of randomly selected patient files (ten per quarter), validated customer complaints collected monthly, and verification of contractor documentation. Performance ratings are assigned using a five-tier system ranging from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory, with ratings documented in Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPAR) to establish past performance history. The COR maintains a quality assurance file and prepares Contract Reports for any performance deficiencies, requiring the contractor to submit corrective action plans when standards are not met.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C24926Q0154 0001.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT D.3 - ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT D.6 - CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION OF IMMIGRATION.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT D.5 - SCHEDULE OF SERVICES.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT D.4 - CONTRACTOR RULES OF BEHAVIOR.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT D.1 - PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT FINAL.docx | DOCX document | |
| S02-36C24926Q0154-Mobile Lithotripsy-RFQ.pdf |
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
D.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN
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: | Olonzo Haynes | |
| Assigned CS: | Rebecca Espinoza | |
| Organization or Agency: | Network Contracting Office (NCO) - 9 |
1639 Medical Center Parkway Murfreesboro, TN 37129 Olonzo.Haynes@va.gov Rebecca.Espinoza@va.gov (615)-225-6959 (Olonzo) (615)-225-6998 (Rebecca)
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: | Joshua P. Hutchins, Administrative Officer | ||
| Other Key Personnel: | Greg Champney, M.D., Surgical Services | ||
| Organization or Agency: | James H. Quillen Veterans Affair Medical Center | ||
| Surgical Service |
Corner of Lamont & Veterans Way Mtn Home, TN 37684-1000 Joshua.Hutchins2@va.gov (423)-979-3496
3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES
The following employee(s) of the contractor serve as the contractor’s program manager(s) for this contract.
Primary Program Manager: _____________________ Phone Number / Email Address: _____________________________________ Alternate Program Manager: ____________________ Phone Number / Email Address: _____________________________________
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 6. 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. 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: Observation and random inspection (auditing) surveys
b. PERIODIC INSPECTION. Inspections scheduled and reported quarterly or monthly per COR delegation or as needed. For example, ten (10) randomly selected patient files will be reviewed per inspection period. All inspections and reports will be conducted in compliance with VA Privacy and Information security standards
c. VALIDATED USER/CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS. Complaints collected and reported monthly.
d. RANDOM SAMPLING. Inspections scheduled and reported quarterly per COR delegation or as needed. Ten (10) randomly selected patient files will be reviewed per quarter. All reviews and reports will be conducted in compliance with VA Privacy and Information security standards.
e. Verification and/or documentation provided by Contractor. Reviewable documentation will be maintained and accessible for periodic inspection to ensure it is in accordance with ACR/ASTRO standards.
36C24926Q0154 – Onsite Mobile Lithotripsy Services – James H. Quillen VA Medical Center 36C24926Q0154 – Onsite Mobile Lithotripsy Services – James H. Quillen VA Medical Center f.
| 6. QASP PERFORMANCE REPORT DATE: ________________ |
| Measure |
| ID Reference |
| Performance Requirement |
| Standard |
| Acceptable Quality Level |
| Surveillance Method |
| Met AQL/DID NOT MEET AQL- CPAR RATING/ADD COMMENTS |
| Timeliness |
| 1 |
| Equipment preparation and on time |
| Equipment must be prepared to perform the first procedure of the day at 8:00 AM for all first case starts. |
| 95% |
| Direct Observation, attendance reports. |
| Quality Care |
| 2 |
| Technician credentials |
| All technicians must be certified and trained in operation of equipment used. |
| 100% |
| Prior to Award and Periodic Inspection Thereafter |
| 3 |
| Retreatment |
| Patients will not be required to undergo additional identical treatment within 90 days of their initial procedure due to continued problems with the stone(s). |
| 95% |
| Random Sampling of return visits to OR |
| Patient Safety |
| 4 |
| Patient safety incidents must be reported to the Patient Safety Officer |
| All incidents reported immediately (within 24 hours.) |
| 100% |
| Notification from Patient Safety Officer. |
| Patient Satisfaction |
| 5 |
| Patient complaints about the quality of care are reported to the appropriate personnel (Patient Advocate/COR) for resolution. |
| All patient complaints from patient advocate are reported to the Surgical Service Administrative Officer |
| 95% |
| Direct Observation |
6.
CPAR RATINGS ASSIGNED TO QASP ITEMS:
Metrics and methods are designed to determine rating for a given standard and acceptable quality level. The following ratings shall be used (Reference: CPARS User Manual https://www.cpars.gov/documents/CPARS-Guidance)
| 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).
7. 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 Report (CR), 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 CR in writing. The CR 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 CR 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 CRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action deemed necessary by the CO. See Sample CR below.
8. COR AND CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QASP
SIGNED:
COR: Joshua P. Hutchins DATE Contracting Officer Representative
SIGNED:
CONTRACTOR NAME/TITLE DATE
CONTRACT REPORT
| 1. CONTRACT NUMBER |
| 2. REPORT NUMBER FOR THIS ISSUE |
| 3. TO: (Contracting Officer) |
| 4. FROM: (Name of COR) |
5. DATES
a. CR PREPARED
| b. RETURNED BY CONTRACTOR: |
| c. ACTION COMPLETE |
6. Issue Identified (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 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.
13. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
14. CLOSE OUT
| NAME |
| TITLE |
| SIGNATURE |
| DATE |
CONTRACTOR NOTIFIED
COR
CONTRACTING OFFICER
END OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .