D.7 - QASP - Microwave Ablation Cryoablation.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Interventional Radiology Microwave Ablation / Cryoablation 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. Any changes in CO / CS will be made by email.

Assigned CO: Sandra McAnany email: Sandra.mcanany@va.gov phone: 651-293-3032 Assigned CS: Laura Nabity email: laura.nabity@va.gov phone: 651-293-3048 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 COR: Thomas vonAhlefeld, NWIHCS Imaging Service Operations Manager email: Thomas.vonAhlefeld@va.gov phone: 402-995-3411

Alternate contact: Chris Ringleb email: Christopher.ringleb@va.gov phone: 402-346-8800 x3341

Organization or Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs, Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System, Omaha

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

Primary: email: Phone:

Alternate: email: Phone:

Attachment D.7 mailto:Sandra.mcanany@va.gov mailto:laura.nabity@va.gov mailto:Thomas.vonAhlefeld@va.gov mailto:Christopher.ringleb@va.gov

QASP– MWA & Cryoablation

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. 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: Ongoing review of records.

b. VALIDATED USER/CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS. Complaint or notification from C.T. or Interventional Radiologist nurses.

6. SAMPLE QASP PERFORMANCE REPORT

Measure PWS Reference

Performance Requirement Standard Acceptable

Quality Level Method Of

Surveillance

Met AQL/DID NOT

MEET AQL-

CPAR RATING /

ADD COMMENTS

Response time to VA 3

The Cryoablation / Microwave Ablation unit is required to be on-site and in the C.T.

Suite a minimum of 60 minutes prior to procedure’s scheduled start time

Contractor’s staff and equipment are on time and available to perform services 60 minutes prior to the procedure’s schedule start time

95%

Direct Observation /

Validated user/customer complaints and

Time & Attendance Sign in Sheet

Required Training 5

Contractor’s staff assigned to provide service at the VA will remain current with all required VA training.

Contractor’s staff who provide services at the VA must complete all required VA training to include, but not limited to; HIPAA/Privacy Training, Fire safety, Infection control, blood borne pathogens

100%

Direct Observation:

COR’s Review of Training Records

7. 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:

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 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).

8. 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.

c. 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.

d. 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:

Thomas vonAhlefeld, NWIHCS Imaging Service Ops Manager DATE

COR NAME / TITLE

SIGNED:

DATE

CONTRACTOR’S NAME / TITLE

CONTRACT REPORT (CR)

1. CONTRACT NUMBER 2. REPORT NUMBER FOR THIS DISCREPANCY

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, 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

CONTRACTOR

NOTIFIED

COR

CONTRACTING

OFFICER