RFI Description - OCDAO Final.docx

US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Information and Technology (OIT)

Integrated Office of the Chief Data and Analytics Officer (OCDAO) Support

Request for Information (RFI)

This is a Request for Information (RFI) only issued for conducting market research. Accordingly, this RFI constitutes neither a Request for Quote (RFQ), Request for Proposal (RFP), nor a guarantee that one will be issued by the Government in the future; furthermore, it does not commit the Government to contract for any services described herein. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not, at this time, seeking proposals or quotes, and therefore, will not accept, review, or evaluate unsolicited proposals or quotes received in response hereto. This notice is not to be construed as a commitment on the part of the Government to award a contract, nor does the Government intend to pay for any information submitted because of this request. The Government does not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with submission of the information being requested or reimburse expenses incurred for responses to this RFI. The information provided may be used by VA in developing its acquisition strategy and Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Product Description (PD). Any information submitted by respondents to this RFI is strictly voluntary; however, any information received shall become the property of the Government and will not be returned to the respondent. Interested parties are responsible for adequately marking proprietary, restricted, or competition sensitive information contained in their response. Product information, brochures, part numbers, and/or other description information may be included with the submission. VA is under no obligation to provide feedback to the RFI respondent, or to contact the RFI respondent for clarification of any information submitted as part of the response.

Requirement:

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Information and Technology, requires program management, data governance, data architecture, business analytics, and mission support services for the OCDAO. Services include cross-contract integration and coordination; analytics, dashboard, and business intelligence support; data governance, stewardship, and Enterprise Data Catalog services; Business Architecture refresh and reference model management; and mission-enabling initiative delivery, road mapping, and training. Success will be measured by timely completion and acceptance of deliverables and by mission outcomes, such as trusted analytics informing decisions and VA data being discovered, governed, and reused rather than duplicated. The overarching goal is data that is trusted, discoverable, and non-duplicative, and that improves Veteran-facing outcomes and stewardship of taxpayer resources. VA OIT has released several RFIs and RFPs recently. The CDAO Implementation Support contract is intended to manage, standardize, align, and improve enterprise data; ensure mission outcomes, data quality, business architecture, and trustworthy analytics. MOSAIC Modernizes and delivers authoritative transactional and operational data across all access patterns; establishes next‑generation integration and data‑product architecture. VEDAS provides an environment for analytics, insight‑generation, and AI‑assisted solutions for the governed, high‑quality data produced through our OCDAO Implementation Support and that delivered through MOSAIC.

The attached Performance Work Statement – Integrated OCDAO Support describes the technical specifications for this effort.

RFI Submission Instructions:

VA requests a clear, concise, and complete response to this RFI. Please submit your RFI response in accordance with the following:

1) Include the following identification information:

a. Name of Company

b. Address

c. Point of Contact

d. Phone Number

e. Email address

f. CAGE/Unique Entity ID (UEI) Number

g. Company Business Size and NAICS code(s). For VOSB and SDVOSBs, proof of certification in the SBA Veteran Small Business Certification Program and listed in the SBA certification database (see 13 CFR 128.102).

h. Any Schedules held on General Services Administration (GSA), Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWAC) held on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Solutions for Enterprise Wide Procurement (SEWP) V, or any other schedule not mentioned above to assist in determining acquisition strategy if you are included in one or more. Please also include Contract Number, expiration date, etc.

i. Socioeconomic data: If a small business, what type of small business are you? Are you able to comply with FAR 52.219-6 and 52.219-14 in execution of this effort? Are you able to comply with VAAR 852.219-73, VA Notice of Total Set-Aside for Certified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses or VAAR 852.219-74, VA Notice of Total Set-Aside for Certified Veteran-Owned Small Businesses.

2) Corporate experience or expertise in performing these services and specific examples or references. Specific examples or references provided must include the agency, point of contact, dollar value, and contract number.

3) Has the draft PWS provided sufficient detail to describe the technical requirements for the services to be performed under this effort?

______ YES _______ NO (if No, answer question 4)

4) If “NO”, please provide your technical comments and recommendations on elements of the draft PWS that may contribute to a more accurate proposal submission and efficient, cost-effective effort.

5) PRICING ESTIMATE (ROM): Provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM) price estimate for performing the services described in the attached draft PWS over the base period and four option periods (February 1, 2027 through January 31, 2032). A completed price schedule is not required. Pricing may be presented in whatever format best reflects your proposed approach. Pricing submitted in response to this RFI is a non-binding estimate and is not an offer. At a minimum, please provide:

a. Total ROM price for the base year and each option period, along with the total for the full period of performance.

b. The pricing structure proposed for each major area of the PWS

c. The labor categories, rates, and estimated hours or full-time equivalents (FTEs) used to develop the estimate.

d. Separate pricing for each Optional Task, including any tier-based or volume-based assumptions used.

e. Key assumptions and exclusions, including travel, and any information VA would need to provide to refine the estimate.

f. If any portion of the PWS cannot be priced, identify that portion and explain why.

6) RFI QUESTIONS FOR INDUSTRY: Responses to the following questions are required. Please answer each question individually and label each response with its letter:

a. Integrator coordination and reporting. The draft PWS separates cross-contract schedule and dependency tracking, executive status reporting, and advisory synthesis for leadership into three distinct functions. How would you propose staffing these functions to avoid duplicative labor across overlapping leadership reporting and synthesis work? Would you recommend consolidating them into a single function with sub-deliverables?

b. OCDAO Office coordination advisory support. This function is drafted with specific language to distinguish it from personal services under FAR 37.104, including restrictions on co-location and daily direction. Based on the scope as written, does it read as non-personal, deliverables-based advisory support, or does it raise personal-services concerns in your assessment? What changes to the scope or structure would you suggest to address any concerns?

c. Enterprise data flow discovery. The enterprise integrator performs enterprise-wide data flow discovery and modeling using a four-phase methodology, while the enterprise data architecture function performs similar discovery scoped to platform integration. How would your organization staff these efforts to avoid duplicating discovery work on the same source systems? Would a single consolidated data-flow discovery effort, with an enterprise-level output and a platform-integration sub-output, be more efficient than two separate efforts?

d. Optional tiered ordering for business analytics support. The tiering structure excludes the enabling infrastructure and program operations area from tiered ordering and treats it as standing capacity. Given a five-year period of performance, do you have concerns about pricing standing-capacity support without volume flexibility? Would you recommend tying any portion of that area to actual intake and demand volume?

e. Business Architecture refresh turnaround. Several deliverables begin only after Government acceptance of a Phase 0 scoping baseline, which is due 45 days after award. What turnaround time would you propose for subsequent Business Architecture refresh deliverables once the Phase 0 baseline is accepted?

f. At-risk payment structure. The PWS contemplates establishing outcome metrics and baselines (up to a 12-month baseline period) before tying 5 to 10 percent of relevant CLIN value to achievement of those metrics. How would you propose pricing or structuring CLINs for an at-risk payment mechanism where metrics and targets are not established until after a baseline period following award?

g. Contract structure. The PWS bundles core data governance and analytics support with legacy application operations and sustainment (RM-MKR) and a distinct six-pillar data security governance and coordination function. From an industry perspective, does bundling these skill areas under one contract support more effective, integrated delivery, or would separate contract vehicles better align with how your organization would staff and propose this work? If bundled, how would you organize your team to cover both areas without diluting focus on the core data and analytics mission?

h. Scope size. Given the breadth of the PWS (five major pillars plus multiple large optional tasks), is the overall scope appropriately sized for a single prime contract award, or would you recommend restructuring (for example, into multiple smaller procurements) to improve competition and manageable execution?

i. Business Architecture refresh pricing. Section 5.5.7 requires an initial Phase 0 assessment to establish the scope and complexity of subsequent Business Architecture refresh activities. Given that the workload may not be fully defined until Phase 0 is completed and accepted by the Government, what pricing structure would your organization recommend for these activities? Would you recommend separately pricing Phase 0 and using predefined tiers, unit pricing, or another approach for subsequent work? What additional information would be needed to develop an accurate price estimate?

The Government will not review any other information or attachments included, that are in excess of the 15-page limit. The Government will not review generic marketing materials that do not address the information contained herein or the attached documents.

All interested parties shall respond no later than 12:00 PM EST on November 6, 2026 via e-mail. If you have any questions on the RFI, please submit via the SAM.gov. Please note Integrated OCDAO Support in the subject line of your response.

The TAC point of contact for this RFI is Contract Specialist, Kevin Andujar, Email address: Kevin.Andujar@va.gov.

See attached documents: Draft Performance Work Statement – Integrated OCDAO Support