S02 - Attachment - QASP for HRD Program Evaluation _ Management.docx
DOCX document 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- R410--VHA WMC HRD Program Evaluation & Management (VA-23-00030509) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C77623Q0345
About this file
This document contains a quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) and related federal contract opportunity solicitation for program evaluation and management services. The QASP defines performance standards and acceptable quality levels for project management, competency gap assessment and reporting, data collection and analysis, and maintenance of a SharePoint site. Performance will be monitored randomly, and incentives include favorable past performance ratings for meeting standards or potential contract termination for repeated failures. The federal contract opportunity is a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses to provide program evaluation and management services to the Veterans Affairs Office of Workforce Management and Consulting. The NAICS code is 541611 with a $21.5 million size standard. Proposals are due by the date specified in the solicitation.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Questions and Answers for 36C77623Q0345.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 36C77623Q0345 A00001_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C77623Q0345 A00001.pdf | ||
| 36C77623Q0345.docx | DOCX document | |
| S02 - Combined Synopsis Solicitation Commercial Products and Commercial Services.docx | DOCX document | |
| S02 - Attachment - PWS HRD Program Evaluation and Management.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
HRD Program Evaluation and Management Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)
The table below defines the performance standards and acceptable levels of performance associated with the deliverables in this effort.
Required Service/Task
| Performance Standard |
| Acceptable Quality Level |
| Method of Surveillance |
| Incentive (positive |
and /or Negative)
| Project Management |
| See Task/Deliverables Section of PWS |
| Meets Standards set forth in PWS |
| Random |
| Positive incentive for meeting performance standards and acceptable quality levels is a favorable past performance rating. See the table below for incentives for performance that does not meet acceptable quality levels. |
| Competency Gap Assessment and Report |
| See Task/Deliverables Section of PWS |
| Meets Standards set forth in PWS |
| Random |
| Positive incentive for meeting performance standards and acceptable quality levels is a favorable past performance rating. See the table below for incentives for performance that does not meet acceptable quality levels. |
| Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting |
| See Task/Deliverables Section of PWS |
| Meets Standards set forth in PWS |
| Random |
| Positive incentive for meeting performance standards and acceptable quality levels is a favorable past performance rating. See the table below for incentives for performance that does not meet acceptable quality levels. |
HRD Customer Central SharePoint Enhancement, Management and Maintenance
| See Task/Deliverables Section of PWS |
| Meets Standards set forth in PWS. See notes 1 and 2. |
| Random |
| Positive incentive for meeting performance standards and acceptable quality levels is a favorable past performance rating. See the table below for incentives for performance that does not meet acceptable quality levels. |
Note 1: Significant errors or omissions are defined as deliverables not meeting the intent of the task and the work considered to be within scope of this order.
Note 2: Continued repetitive errors may result in an unacceptable rating on performance report to be used as part of the evaluation criteria on future order competition.
Late Deliverables and/or Significant Errors or Omissions shall be handled in the following manner:
| 1st Attempt |
| Meets or exceeds all acceptable quality levels and expectations of task/ deliverable |
| 2nd Attempt |
| Does not meet all acceptable quality levels and expectations of task/ deliverable: 5 days to remedy and resubmit. |
| 3rd Attempt |
| Does not meet all acceptable quality levels and expectations of task/ deliverable: 3 days to remedy and resubmit |
| 4th Attempt |
| Does not meet all acceptable quality levels and expectations of task/ deliverable: 1 day to remedy and resubmit |
| 5th Attempt |
| Does not meet all acceptable quality levels and expectations of task/ deliverable: The Government may not accept a deliverable that does not meet all acceptable quality levels and expectations of task/ deliverable after the 5th round of revisions from a Contractor. The contract in whole or part may be terminated for cause for failure to perform. |
Late deliverables:
a. Deliverables must be provided on the dates specified. Any changes to the delivery date must have prior approval (in writing) by the PM/CO or designate at least five business days prior to the deliverable due date
b. If the deliverable cannot be provided within the scheduled time frame, the Vendor is required to contact the Project Manager/Contract Manager in writing with a reason for the delay and the proposed revised schedule. The request for a revised schedule must include the impact on related tasks and the overall project
c. A request for a revised schedule must be reviewed and approved by the PM/CO before placed in effect. Contract Terms and Conditions may dictate penalties, costs, and other actions based on the facts related to the request for a revised schedule
The above QASP is only a sample and may change based on what the Contractor(s) submit in their proposed approach.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .