S02 - Attachment D.1 - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan QASP.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. 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: Jayne Messer, jayne.messer@va.gov, 239-373-9064 Organization or Agency: Networking Contracting Office 8

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: Primary: Melissa Hartley, melissa.hartley@va.gov, 305-575-3244 Alternate: Jose Ortiz, jose.ortiz4@va.gov, 305-575-3244 Organization or Agency: Miami VA Healthcare System

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% visual and audio surveillance of contractor’s provider(s) in the Operating Room (OR).

b. PERIODIC INSPECTION. Inspections scheduled and reported quarterly per COR appointment or as needed. All contractor’s provider(s) credentials, certifications, and required trainings will be reviewed by the COR to ensure they are current. All inspections and reports will be conducted in compliance with VA Privacy and Information security standards.

c. VALIDATED USER/CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS. Feedback via PATS (Patient Advocate Tracking System) and JPSR (Joint Patient Safety Report) will be reviewed by the COR.

d. RANDOM SAMPLING. The COR will review Joint Patient Safety Report to ensure all incidents are reported timely. All reviews and reports will be conducted in compliance with VA Privacy and Information security standards.

e. VERIFICATION AND/OR DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. The contractor must supply provider qualifications, pertinent provider documents including licenses, training compliance and invoices.

Q ua lit y

A ss ur an ce S ur ve ill an ce P la n

(Q A

SP

6.

SA

M

PL

E

Q A

SP

P

ER

FO

R M

A N

C E

R

EP

O

RT

D A

TE

M ea su re s

PW

S R ef er en ce

Pe rf or m an

R eq ui re m en t

St an da rd

A cc ep ta bl e Q ua lit y Le ve l

Su rv ei lla nc e

M et ho d

M et

A Q

L/

DI

D

NO

T M

EE

T

A

L-

C

PA

R S

R A

TI

N

G /A

M

M

EN

TS

Pr ov id er

Q ua lit y

Pe rfo rm

4.

5.

4.

Al l C on tra ct or

’s pr id er

(s ) m us t pe rfo rm in ac co rd an ce w ith cl ic al s ta nd ar ds d as s pe ci fie d in th e

PW

S

Al l (

0%

) o f

C on tra ct ph ys ic ia n( s) m us t m ee t o r ex ed cu rre nt ly re gn iz na tio na l st an da rd s of th e Am er ic

As so ci at io n fo r

N eu ro lo gi ca l Su rg eo ns

(A

AN

S)

Al l

(1

) o f C on tra ct

IO

N

Te ch no lo gi st

(s m us t m ee t o r ex gn iz na na l st an da rd s of th e Am er ic an B oa rd of eg is tra tio n

El ec tro en ce ph al og ra ph ic a nd

Ev ok

Po te nt ia l

0% ire ct bs er va lit y

A ss ur an ce S ur ve ill an ce P la n

(Q A

SP

no lo gi st s

(A

BR

ET

Q ua lif ic at io ns o f K ey rs on ne l

4.

5.

4.

Al l C on tra ct eu ro ph ys io lo gi st ic ia ns (s sh al l b e cr ed en tia le by th e Am er

Bo eu ro lo gi ca l

Su rg er y an d ho ld rti fic at

Fe llo w sh ip

In tra op er at iv e N eu ro m on ito rin g.

Al l C on tra ct no lo gi st

(s m us t b e ce rti fie d

Al l C on tra ct no lo gi st

(s m us t h ol d a

C er tif ic at e

(b e ce rti fie d) o f

N eu ro ph ys io lo gi c In te ro pe ra tiv e

M on ito rin g (C

N

IM

) f ro m b y th e Am er eg is tra tio

El ec tro en ce ph al o gr ap hi c an d Ev ok ed

P ot en tia l Te ch no lo gi st s

(A

BR

ET

Al l (

0%

C on tra ct ic ia n( s) d

C er tif ie d.

l (

0%

IO

no lo gi st (s ar e

AB

ET

rti fie d.

rio di c In sp ec tio qu al ifi ca tio n do cu m en ts lit y

A ss ur an ce S ur ve ill an ce P la n

(Q A

SP

Sc op tic e/ Pr iv ile ng

4.

C on tra ct ic ia pe rfo rm w ei r i nd iv id ua l sc op es o f pr ac tic e/ pr iv ile gi n g

Al l (

0%

C on tra ct pr id er

(s pe rfo rm w r s co pe o f pr ac tic e/ pr iv ile g es ra ct ic ia n ( rm w r s co pe o f pr ac tic e/ pr iv ile ge s

0% o f t he ti e.

er va

Pa tie nt A cc es s

4.

Th e

C on tra sh l p ro vi de on tra ct ne ur op hy si ol og is t ph ys ic ia n( s) no lo gi st

(s ) i n ac co rd an ce op er at in g ho ur s an

VA

cl ic al s ch ed ul e ou tli ne d in is

PW

S.

l (

0%

C on tra ct op hy si ol og i st p hy si ci an

(s an d

IO

no lo gi st

(s ar e on ti m e an d av ai la bl to rm se rv ic es

C on tra ct op hy si ol og is t ph ys ic ia n( s) no lo gi st (s ar e on ti m e an d av ai la bl rm s er vi ce s

0% o f t he ti er va

Pa tie nt S af et y 4.

5.

4.

Pa tie nt s af et y in ci de nt s sh al l t o be re po rte d us in g Pa tie nt

S af et y

R ep or t.

Al l in ci de nt s re po rte d im m ed ia

(w in ho ur s.

Al l (

0%

) o f pa tie nt s af et y in ci de nt s ar e re po rte d us in g Pa tie nt

S af et y

R ep or t w h ou rs o f in ci de nt

0% o f p at ie sa fe ty in ci de nt s ar e re po rte d us in g Pa tie nt

S af et y

R ep or t w ith in ho ur s of in ci de nt

N o ac ce pt ab le at io n.

di c

In sp ec tio do

Sa pl g ai nt ai ns li ce ns g, st ra tio n, fic at io n

4.

5.

4.

U pd at

Li ns st ra tio n an d ce rti fic at io n sh al l be p ro vi de as a re re ne w ed

Li ce ns in g an d re gi st ra tio n

Al l (

0% lic en si ng re gi st ra tio ce rti fic at io fo r C on tra ct op hy si ol og i st p hy si ci an

(s

0% li ce ns st ra tio n( s) fic at io n(

s) fo r co nt ra ct ic ia n ( s) s ha ll be p ro vi de as a re re ne w ed

Li ce ns in g an d

Pe rio di c

In sp ec tio pl lit y

A ss ur an ce S ur ve ill an ce P la n

(Q A

SP

fo rm at io n ke pt nt an d

IO

no lo gi st

(s sh al l b e pr ov id ed a s th ey w ed

Li ce ns in g an d re gi st ra tio n in fo rm at io n nt re gi st ra tio n in fo rm at io n nt

. N o ac ce pt ab le at io n.

da to ry T ra in in g

4.

5.

4.

C on tra ct or s ha ll co m pl et e al l re qu ire d tra in in g on ti m e pe r f ac ilit y po lic y

Al l (

0%

) o f re qu ire d tra in in pl et ed o n tim tra ct ic ia te ch no lo gi st (s pl et io ns , n o de vi at io ns di c

In sp ec tio pl iv ac y, C on fid en tia lit y an d H

IP

AA

4.

C on tra ct aw e of a ll la s, gu la tio ns po lic ie s an d pr oc ed la tin y, fid en tia lit y an d

H

IP

AA

pl ie s w ith a ll st an da rd s

Ze ro br ea ch es o f pr iv ac y nf id en tia lit y

Al l (

0%

C on tra ct ic ia te ch no lo gi st (s co m pl y w ith a ll la s, gu la tio ns po lic ie s an d pr oc ed la tin fid en tia lit y an d H

IP

AA

pl ia nc di c

In sp ec n;

tra sh l p ro ev id en ce o f an nu tra in g re qu ire fa ci lit po rts ol at io ns p er

VA

H an db oo k

.6

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/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-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 Diecrepancy Report (CDR), 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 CDR in writing. The CDR 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 CDR 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 CDRs 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:

Melissa Hartly/Program Specialist

COR NAME/TITLE DATE

SIGNED:

CONTRACTOR NAME/TITLE DATE

MELISSA

HARTLEY

Digitally signed by MELISSA

HARTLEY

Date: 2025.11.17 12:49:56 -05'00'

CONTRACT DISCREPANCY 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