QASP Mobile CT v2 (002).pdf

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. For a mobile CT scanner service at the Eureka, CA Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC), establishing clear performance requirements, standards, acceptable quality levels (AQLs), and selecting appropriate surveillance methods are crucial for ensuring high-quality, efficient, and patient-centered care. Here's a detailed approach for each performance objective: This QASP explains the following:

• What will be monitored?

• How will monitoring will 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: Austin Mitts

Contracting Officer Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Officer 21 (NCO 21) Austin.Mitts@va.gov

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: James Freitas, FAC COR II

Imaging Program Administrator, Radiology Service (114) San Francisco VA Health Care System lucky.freitas@va.gov mailto:emily.trinh@va.gov mailto:lucky.freitas@va.gov

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

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. QASP PERFORMANCE REPORT DATE: __________________

Measures PWS Reference

Performance Requirement

Standard Acceptable Quality Level

Surveillance Method

Met AQL/DID NOT

MEET AQL-

CPARS

RATING/ADD

COMMENTS

Timeliness Mobile CT services must be available and performed within scheduled times.

CT scans are to be performed within same guidelines of the main hospital

SFVAMC

Imaging Service.

95% of all CT scan requests must be fulfilled within same guidelines of the main hospital SFVAMC Imaging Service.

Periodic Inspection of service records and scheduling logs on a quarterly basis to verify adherence to timeliness standards.

Quality of Care CT scans must be performed by appropriately certified radiologic technologists and interpreted by board-certified radiologists.

All personnel involved in the CT scanning process must have current certifications and qualifications.

100% compliance with certification and qualification requirements for staff.

Verification and/or documentation provided by the Supervisory Technologist, including annual certification and qualification checks.

Accessibility The mobile CT scanner must be accessible to all veterans, including those with disabilities.

Compliance with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards for accessibility.

100% of the service instances must meet ADA standards for accessibility.

Direct Observation of the mobile CT setup during unannounced visits to ensure ADA compliance.

Patient Satisfaction Achieve high patient satisfaction with the CT scanning service.

At least a 90% satisfaction rate on patient surveys

90% positive feedback on aspects of care, Random Sampling of patient satisfaction surveys distributed after each CT scan, regarding the service.

comfort, and communication.

with quarterly analysis of the results.

Safety Compliance Full compliance with safety standards and regulations for radiation exposure and patient handling.

Zero violations of safety standards and regulations.

Detection of no more than one minor non-compliance issue per quarter, with immediate corrective action required.

Periodic Inspection and review of safety audit reports, incident reports, and compliance documentation on a quarterly basis.

7. CPARS RATINGS ASSIGNED TO QASP ITEMS:

For each of these areas, the chosen surveillance methods are tailored to effectively monitor and evaluate the specific aspects of service delivery, ensuring that the mobile CT scanner service at the Eureka, CA Veterans Affairs CBOC meets or exceeds the established standards of care, timeliness, accessibility, patient satisfaction, and safety compliance.

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.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).

UNSATISFACTO

RY: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-https://www.cpars.gov/documents/CPARS-Guidance.pdf https://www.cpars.gov/documents/CPARS-Guidance.pdf 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 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.

9. COR AND CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QASP

SIGNED:

James Freitas, COR II / Imaging Program Administrator 2/12/24

COR NAME/TITLE DATE

SIGNED:

CONTRACTOR NAME/TITLE DATE

CONTRACT REPORT

1. CONTRACT NUMBER

36C26122C0018

2. REPORT NUMBER

3. TO: (Contracting Officer)

Maricela Berrones-Gauger

4. FROM: (Name of COR)

James Freitas

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