QASP.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

D.2 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans (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 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: TBD Organization or Agency: Network Contracting Office 6

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: LaDaris Britt

Organization or Agency: Hampton Veteran Affairs Medical Center

3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES

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

Primary:

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) LaDaris Britt 757-722-9961 Ext. 12100 ladaris.britt@va.gov

Alternate:

TBD

https://vaww.aams.ecms.va.gov/AAMS_Production/DAV/xvwyyybjybtzvq-y/djina.barskile@va.gov https://vaww.aams.ecms.va.gov/AAMS_Production/DAV/xvwyyybjybtzvq-y/william.ruane@va.gov

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. INCENTIVES/DEDUCTS

The Government shall use past performance as incentives. Incentives shall be based on ratings received on the performance standards (Inclusion of any monetary incentives requires approval through the Department’s Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) – there will be no monetary incentives.

6. 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: Action required via daily reporting.

b. PERIODIC INSPECTION. Inspections scheduled and reported quarterly per COR delegation or as needed. 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. Customer complaint data will be obtained via Customer feedback and will be compiled weekly and reviewed by Service Chief. Any validated complaints against the Contractor which are not resolved within seven business days will be further investigated.

d. RANDOM SAMPLING. Patient treatment files will be quarterly randomly and or periodically selected for review. All reviews and reports will be conducted in compliance with VA Privacy and Information security standards.)

e. Verification and/or documentation provided by Contractor. Contractor provided documentation will be reviewed via required daily action reporting.

Measures PWS Refere nce

Performan ce

Requireme nt

Standard Acceptab le

Quality Level

Surveillance Method

Met AQL/DID

NOT MEET

AQL-

CPAR Rating / Add Comments

1- Provider Quality Performance

4.2 All contract

provider (s) shall meet

OEM

requireme nts listed within

SOW.

All OEM parts used for repairs

100% Direct Observation, periodic inspection, and validated user/customer complaints

2-Repsonse times

5. All contract provider (s) shall meet quality wait time requireme nts listed within

SOW.

Repsond within 30 min, 2 hours on Station.

98% Direct Observation, periodic inspection, and validated user/customer complaints

3-Parts availability

5.4 All contract

provider (s) shall meet spare parts requireme nt listed within

SOW.

Parts available 24 hours, 7 days a week.

95% Direct Observation, periodic inspection, and validated user/customer complaints

The table below is a sample that can be tailored – note that the table must identify where in the PWS the standards are found for monitoring performance. Check the MSO Customer Resource Center for approved mandatory QASPs.

7. RATINGS

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 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).

UNSATISFACTOR

Y: 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).