D.2 Quality Assurance Surveillance Program QASP.docx
DOCX document 33 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Q515--ON-SITE/OFF-SITE Pathology Services/589A7 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C25525Q0096_1
About this file
This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) outlines the systematic method for evaluating contractor performance for pathology services at the Robert J. Dole VA Medical Center in Wichita, KS. The QASP details specific performance standards and monitoring methods, with oversight provided by Contracting Officer Mike Carson and COR Sherry Parsons. Key performance requirements include: board certification of physicians, availability during business hours (7:30 AM - 4:30 PM M-F), 15-minute response time for emergent consultations, 20-minute turnaround for initial frozen sections, 24-hour provider notification for new malignancies, and completion of routine surgical pathology reports within 2 working days and complicated cases within 10 working days.
The surveillance methods include direct observation, periodic inspection of patient files, validated customer complaints, random sampling, and contractor documentation verification. Performance ratings range from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory based on meeting established quality levels, with most standards requiring 90-100% compliance. The QASP specifically monitors provider quality, staff qualifications, scope of practice compliance, availability, consultation response times, report completion timeframes, licensing maintenance, and HIPAA compliance. This is a "living document" that can be revised through contract modification with contractor coordination.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| D.1 Price Schedule.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| D.3 Contractor Rules of Behavior.pdf | ||
| D.6 Past Performance References.pdf | ||
| 36C25525Q0096_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| D.5 Immigration and Nationality Act.pdf | ||
| D.7 Wage Determination 2015-5341 rev 27 7-22-2024.docx.pdf | ||
| D.8 BYLAWS Robert J Dole VAMC June 2023.pdf | ||
| D.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
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 will monitoring take place?
· Who will conduct the monitoring?
· How will monitoring efforts and results 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: Mike Carson, 913-946-1119, michael.carson1@va.gov.
Organization or Agency: Network Contracting Office (NCO) 15
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: Sherry Parsons, 316-685-2221 x53816, sherry.parsons2@va.gov Organization or Agency: WI Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Robert J. Dole VA Medical Center (VAMC).
3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES
The following employee(s) of the contractor serve as the contractor’s program manager(s) for this contract.
Primary Program Manager:
Alternate Program Manager:
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: COR will make quarterly spot-checks as to the staff performance.
b. PERIODIC INSPECTION. Inspections scheduled and reported quarterly per COR delegation or as needed. Ten (10) randomly selected patient files will be reviewed per year. All inspections and reports will be conducted in compliance with VA Privacy and Information security standards.
c. VALIDATED USER/CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS. Customer complaints will be monitored by the COR and discussed generally at the weekly staff meeting, and specifically if needed with the staff member.
d. RANDOM SAMPLING. Five (5) 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. All documentation will be verified by the COR.
D.2 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) 36C25525Q0096 D.2 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) 36C25525Q0096
6. QASP PERFORMANCE Report DATE: ____________
| Measure |
| PWS |
Para.
Performance Requirement
| Standard |
| Acceptable Quality Level |
| Surveillance |
Method Met AQL/DID NOT MEET AQL-
CPARS RATING/ADD COMMENTS
| Provider Quality Performance |
| 6.5 |
| All Contractor’s physician (s) shall perform in accordance with clinical standards. |
| 100% of care provided within clinical standards of care. |
| 95% |
| Direct Observation |
Qualifications of Key Personnel
| 6.6 |
| All Contractor’s physician (s) shall have current board certified/board-eligible in accordance with PWS requirements. |
| All (100%) Contractor’s physician (s) are board certified/board-eligible. |
| 100% |
| Verification and/or Documentation Provided By Contractor |
Scope of Practice/ Privileging
| 6.7 |
| All Contractor’s physician (s) perform within their individual scopes of practice/privileging. |
| All (100%) Contractor’s physician (s) perform within their scope of practice/privileges 100% of the time. |
| 100% Contractor’s physician (s) perform within their scope of practice/ |
privileges 100% of the time.
Verification and/or Documentation Provided By Contractor
| Clinical Information Returns Staff Availability |
| 6.8 |
| Availability of Pathologist staffing during normal business hours (7:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. M-F, exclusive of federal holidays) as prescheduled for coverage |
| All (100%) Contractor’s physician (s) are on time and available to perform services. |
| Contractor’s physician (s) are on-time and available to perform services, 95% of the time. |
| Direct Observation |
| Clinical Information Returns Consultation |
| 6.9 |
| Emergent pathology consultations, including but not limited to, unexpected frozen section, blood bank, compatibility and blood bank transfusion reaction interpretations. |
| Response time of less than 15 minutes. |
| >90% |
| Direct Observation |
| Clinical Information Returns Frozen Sections |
| 6.10 |
| Physician notification for typical single frozen sections |
Initial frozen section is 20 minutes; 10 minutes for each additional specimen. Specimen receipt to physician notification.
90% with notification documented on final report
Direct Observation
| Clinical Information Returns Second Review |
| 6.11 |
| Second review of all new malignancies not previously established (excluding skin squamous and basal cell carcinoma) |
| Documented second review of all new malignancies on final report. |
| 100% |
| Direct Observation |
| Clinical Information Returns Provider Notification |
| 6.12 |
| Provider notification of all new malignancies (excluding skin squamous and basal cell carcinoma) |
| Provider notification within 24 hours of diagnosis, including required complete provider documentation in final report as per PWS. |
| 100%, with notification documented on final report. |
Direct Observation
| Clinical Information Returns Correlation |
| 6.13 |
| Correlation of frozen section and final diagnoses |
| 98% correlation |
| Direct Observation |
| Clinical Information Returns Surgical |
| 6.14 |
| Surgical Pathology/Cytology report completion |
Routine within 2 working days of specimen receipt, complicated within 10 working days of specimen receipt.
| 90% |
| Direct Observation |
| Clinical Information Returns PAP |
| 6.15 |
| PAP report completion |
| Within 10 working days of specimen receipt. |
| 90% |
| Direct Observation |
| Clinical Information Returns Corrected Reports |
| 6.16 |
| Corrected/Modified |
report completion
| Correction / modification received within 7 working days of determination of need for amended report. |
| 90% |
| Direct Observation |
| Licensing |
| 6.17 |
| Updated Licensing, registration and certification shall be provided as they are renewed. Licensing and registration information are kept current. |
| All (100%) Licensing, registration (s), and |
certification (s) for Contractor’s physician (s) shall be provided as they are renewed. Licensing and registration information are kept current.
(100%) Licensing, registration (s), and certification (s) for Contractor’s physician (s) shall be provided as they are renewed. Licensing and registration information are kept current. No acceptable deviation.
Verification and/or Documentation Provided By Contractor
| Privacy, Confidentiality and HIPAA |
| 6.18 |
| Contractor is aware of all laws, regulations, policies and procedures relating to Privacy, Confidentiality and HIPAA and complies with all standards Zero breaches of privacy or confidentiality |
| All (100%) Contractor’s physician (s) comply with all laws, regulations, policies and procedures relating to Privacy, Confidentiality and HIPAA |
| 100% compliance. |
| Verification and/or Documentation Provided By Contractor |
| Tests/ Reports |
| 6.19 |
| % of specimen slides mislabeled |
| None |
| 0% |
| Direct Observation |
7.
8. CPARS 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).
9. 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 REPORTING SYSTEM (CPARS).
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.
10. COR AND CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QASP
SIGNED:
COR NAME/TITLE DATE
SIGNED:
CONTRACTOR NAME/TITLE DATE
CONTRACT DEFICIENCY REPORT
| 1. CONTRACT NUMBER |
| 2. REPORT NUMBER |
| 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
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .