D.1 - Attachment 1 - QASP.pdf

D.1 - Attachment 1

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Referral Laboratory Services

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?

a. 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.

b. 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: NCO 23 Contracting Office: Daniel Vagts

Organization or Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs, Network 23 Contracting Office

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 CORs:

Jill Johnson, Health System Specialist

Organization or Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs, VISN 23 PLMS

3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES:

The following employee(s) of the contractor serve as the contractor’s program manager(s) for this contract:

Primary:

Alternate:

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.

a. Performance standards define desired services. The Government performs surveillance to determine the level of Contractor performance to these standards.

b. 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. INCENTIVES/DEDUCTS: The Government shall use past performance as incentives.

Incentives shall be based on ratings received on the performance standards.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE

TASK

PERFORMANCE

STANDARD –

IAW PWS 5.8

and 5.9

ACCEPTABLE

(MINIMAL)

QUALITY

LEVEL (AQL) 1

MONITORING

METHOD

INCENTIVE DISINCENTIVE2

Ensure the safety and integrity of specimens

No loss or destruction of specimens

1 per Month per

Facility

Contractor

Reporting

Favorable Contractor

Performance

Evaluation

Unfavorable contactor performance evaluation

Testing services will be performed in accordance with the def ined turnaround times

(TAT)

Results will be reported within the TAT listed in the contractor’s laboratory reference test manual per test

90% of the time per Facility

Contractor

Reporting

Favorable Contractor

Performance

Evaluation

Unfavorable contactor performance evaluation

Revised Reports Not due to incorrect requisition information

1 Per Month per

Facility

Contractor

Reporting

Favorable Contractor

Performance

Evaluation

Unfavorable contactor performance evaluation

1 AQL’s of 100% are based on the fact that all circumstances outside of the contractor’s control have been accounted for in the performance work statement. For instance, loss or destruction of specimens and missed routes are “justified” in the case of force majeure events and therefore are not included in determining the contractor’s acceptable quality level of performance. If the contractor believes there are excusable circumstances, the contractor shall inform the Contracting Officer and the VISN 23 Le ad

COR.

2 The disincentives above are based on VA’s internal costs incurred when certain performance requirements are not met. Lost or destroyed specimens will require additional medical procedures and delayed health care, the costs of which exceed the disincentive amount.

6. RATINGS: Metrics and methods are designed to determine rating for agiven standard and acceptable quality level. The following ratings shall be used:

EXCEPTIONAL:

Performance meets contractual requirements – Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) 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--(AQL) 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:

(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:

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 inef fective.

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).

CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT

1. CONTRACT NUMBER 2. REPORT NUMBER FOR THIS

DISCREPANCY

3. TO: (Contracting Officer) 4. FROM: (Name of COR)

5. DATES

a . CDR PREPARED b. RETURNED BY

CONTRACTOR:

c. ACTION COMPLETE

6. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM (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, CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS

TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. (Cite applicable quality control program procedures or new procedures. Attach continuation sheet(s) if necessary.)

11. SIGNATURE OFCONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE Date:

12. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION. (Acceptance, partial acceptance, reflection. Attach continuation sheet(s) if necessary.)

13. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (Acceptance, partial acceptance, reflection. Attach continuation sheet(s) if necessary.)

14. CLOSE OUT

NAME TITLE SIGNATURE DATE

CONTRA CTOR

NOTIFIED

COR

CONTRACTING

OFFICER

VA263-17-A-0053 p.5

7. COR AND CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QASP

SIGNED:

Jill Johnson, Health System Specialist

COR NAME/TITLE

SIGNED:

DATE

CONTRACTOR NAME/TITLE DATE

P11 - QASP .pdf