D.4 Attachment 4 - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.pdf

PDF 315 KB Posted

Attached to
Q502--Perfusion Services - MPLS PoP 05/01/2026-04/30/2027 4
Solicitation number
36C26326R0003
Issued by

About this file

This is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for a clinical perfusion services contract with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The QASP outlines the systematic methods for evaluating contractor performance against specified contractual requirements and establishes the roles and responsibilities of government and contractor personnel in administering surveillance activities.

The plan identifies six key performance standards for clinical perfusionists: Provider Quality Performance (98% acceptable quality level), Qualifications of Key Personnel (100% AQL requiring annual recertification), Patient Access (95% AQL with perfusionists onsite during OR hours and within 60 minutes when on call), Patient Safety (98% AQL requiring incidents be reported to VA Patient Safety Reporting System within 24 hours), Mandatory Training and Privacy/Confidentiality Compliance (97% AQL with monthly evidence of training), and Documentation/Timesheet Submission (95% AQL with weekly timesheet completion). Surveillance methods include direct observation, periodic quarterly inspections, validated user complaints, random sampling, and contractor-provided documentation. The Contracting Officer is Daniel Vagts and the Contracting Officer's Representative is Curtiss Vickery, both from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Performance will be rated using a five-tier CPARS system (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory), with the COR providing quarterly written reports to the CO. The document includes procedures for Contract Discrepancy Reports when performance does not meet acceptable quality levels, requiring contractor acknowledgment and corrective action plans within specified timeframes.

View the file

Other files

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

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 1 of 12

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

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: Daniel Vagts

Organization or Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

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: Curtiss Vickery Organization or Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

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:

D.4 Attachment 4 - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 2 of 12

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

b. PERIODIC INSPECTION. Inspections scheduled and reported quarterly per COR delegation or as needed.

c. VALIDATED USER/CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS.

d. RANDOM SAMPLING.

e. Verification and/or documentation provided by Contractor.

6. SAMPLE QASP PERFORMANCE REPORT DATE: __________________

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 3 of 12

Measures PWS Referen ce

Performance Requirement Standard Acceptable Quality Level

Surveillance Method

Met AQL/DID

NOT MEET

AQL-

CPARS

RATING/ADD

COMMENTS

Provider Quality Performance

4.6.4.1 All contract providers shall

provide clinical perfusion services per the PWS requirements and in accordance with recognized clinical standards of care.

All contract providers shall provide clinical perfusion services per the PWS reqs. & in accordance with recognized clinical standards of care.

98% meets Standards

Performance Monitoring (PM) data will be based on observations of Cardiothoracic Surgeons.

Quarterly

Qualifications of Key Personnel

4.6.4.2 All contract clinical

perfusionists provided meet the qualifications standards and abilities in accordance with the PWS requirements for experience, skills and proficiency in providing clinical perfusion services.

All Perfusionists shall be certified and compliant with all certifications

100% meets

Annual Key Personnel re-certification documentation.

Annually

Patient Access (A) 4.6.4.3 Patient must receive treatment in a timely manner

Perfusionists shall be onsite and available during all scheduled OR hours and within 60 minutes of the facility when on call

95% meets

Monthly review of Time and Attendance Sheets

Quarterly

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 4 of 12

Patient Safety 4.6.4.4 Patient safety incidents shall be reported using VA Patient Safety Reporting System. All incidents shall be reported immediately (within 24 hours)

All of patient safety incidents are reported using VA Patient Safety Reporting System within 24 hours of incident

98% meets Standards

Direct Observation and periodic inspection

Quarterly

Mandatory Training, Privacy, Confidentiality and

HIPAA

4.6.4.5 Contractor personnel shall

complete all required training on time per facility policy.

Contractor personnel are 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 contractor personnel shall comply with all laws, regulations, policies and procedures relating to Privacy, Confidentiality, and HIPAA.

97% meets

Periodic Inspection.

Contractor personnel shall provide evidence of annual training required by the facility, reports violations per VA Directive 6500.6.

Monthly

Documentation/Timesheet 4.6.4.6 Time Sheet Documentation to be completed weekly and turned in to COR for validation on the first week of the following month.

Monthly 95% meets Standards

Review of submitted timesheets.

Monthly

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 5 of 12

7. 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/cparsweb/assets/documents/CPARS_User_Manual.pdf)

EXCEPTIONAL: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the VA’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 VA. 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 and exceeds some to the VA’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 VA. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

SATISFACTORY:

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 VA. 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 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 VA. 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 https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpars.gov%2Fcparsweb%2Fassets%2Fdocuments%2FCPARS_User_Manual.pdf&data=05%7C02%7C%7C1299a8a1556647c9c9b208dd897915ec%7Ce95f1b23abaf45ee821db7ab251ab3bf%7C0%7C0%7C638817875334440754%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6A9MQEEm9YUvO1cWqDUn1sC8wYUJvuCVqG%2F2AhW8s1E%3D&reserved=0

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 6 of 12 deficiencies (e.g., Management, Quality, Safety or Environmental Deficiency Reports, or letters).

8. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE

a. The VA 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 shall 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 shall in turn review and shall present to the contractor's program manager for corrective action.

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR shall 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 shall also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the CO. The VA 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. See Sample on following page.

9. 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.

10. COR AND CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QASP

SIGNED:

COR NAME/TITLE DATE

CONTRACTOR NAME/TITLE DATE

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 7 of 12

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 OF CONTRACTOR 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

a. CONTRACTOR

NOTIFIED

b. COR

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 8 of 12 c.

CONTRACTING

OFFICER

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 9 of 12

11. 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:

https://www.cpars.gov/cparsweb/assets/documents/CPARS_User_Manual.pdf)

EXCEPTIONAL: 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: 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: 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 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).

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpars.gov%2Fcparsweb%2Fassets%2Fdocuments%2FCPARS_User_Manual.pdf&data=05%7C02%7C%7C1299a8a1556647c9c9b208dd897915ec%7Ce95f1b23abaf45ee821db7ab251ab3bf%7C0%7C0%7C638817875334440754%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6A9MQEEm9YUvO1cWqDUn1sC8wYUJvuCVqG%2F2AhW8s1E%3D&reserved=0

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 10 of 12

12. 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 Discrepancy 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 CDR below.

13. 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.

14. COR AND CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QASP

COR NAME/TITLE DATE

CONTRACTOR NAME/TITLE DATE

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 11 of 12

CONTRACT 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:

Revision 03/09/2023 Page 12 of 12

12. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION.

13. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS

14. CLOSE OUT

NAME TITLE SIGNATURE DATE

CONTRACTOR

NOTIFIED

COR

CONTRACTING

OFFICER

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
b. PERIODIC INSPECTION. Inspections scheduled and reported quarterly per COR delegation or as needed.
c. VALIDATED USER/CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS.
d. RANDOM SAMPLING.
e. Verification and/or documentation provided by Contractor.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .