RFI_36C10B27Q0109.docx

DoW / VA | CREDENTIALING AND PRIVILEGING Department of War / Department of Veterans Affairs

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Joint Credentialing and Privileging (C&P) Solution Notice ID: 36C10B27Q0109 | Issue Date: November 6, 2026 NAICS Code(s): 541512, 541519 | Product Service Code: DA10

1.0 Disclaimer

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This RFI is being issued solely for information and planning purposes. It does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Quotation (RFQ), or a promise to issue a solicitation. This request does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service. The Department of War (DoW) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are not seeking proposals or quotations and will not accept unsolicited proposals in response to this notice. The Government will not pay for information or administrative costs incurred in responding; all such costs are solely at the interested party's expense. Not responding does not preclude participation in any subsequent solicitation, if one is issued.

2.0 Background

DoW, through the Defense Health Agency (DHA) and the Military Departments, and VA, through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), seek information on a joint enterprise credentialing and privileging solution. The objective is to replace VA's VetPro credentialing capability and DoW's Centralized Credentials Quality Assurance System (CCQAS) credentialing, privileging, and healthcare risk management (HRM) capabilities with a single, shared, commercial vendor solution, configured to each department's needs.

Both departments rely on legacy systems and disconnected processes to manage practitioner qualifications, clinical privileges, and performance evaluations. These limitations create duplicate work, manual handoffs, and incomplete visibility into practitioner status, including when practitioners provide care across facilities or departments.

DoW and VA intend to select a single vendor solution and envision a deployment with a separate, contractor-hosted, instance for each department. Each instance would have department-specific workflows, configuration, administration, data controls, and security authorization, while supporting interoperability among like requirements where information sharing is authorized. This approach would preserve each department's policies and decision authorities without requiring a single shared instance or unrestricted access to the other department's records. Interoperability remains part of the initial joint operational capability.

The healthcare risk-management/HRM component is DoW-only and is not available for VA use under this acquisition. It would operate within the DoW instance, integrated with DoW credentialing and privileging. VA's instance would support its own C&P and professional practice evaluation requirements without enabling the DoW HRM component.

The Impaired Healthcare Providers Program (IHPP) component is DoW-only and is not available for VA use under this acquisition. It would operate within the DoW instance, integrated with DoW credentialing and privileging, and support the management of IHPP evaluations, enrollments, reentry pathways, and related program activities. VA’s instance would not enable the DoW IHPP component or provide VA users access to DoW IHPP case files or workflows. Any exchange of approved provider-status information, review results, or IHPP notices would be subject to applicable authorization and release controls.

This RFI seeks industry best practices and innovative commercial approaches. The seven use cases in Section 4.0 illustrate the departments' needs and are subject to refinement. Respondents should describe how their solution could support the separate-instance scenario and controlled interoperability, without assuming a prescribed internal infrastructure design or reproducing existing manual processes. Any acquisition remains subject to the Government's acquisition process.

3.0 RFI Responses

Submission Deadline: November 20, 2026, 11:00am EST. Submit electronically by email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist identified under Contact Information. Include the notice identifier and joint RFI title in the subject line.

Interested vendors are invited to describe how their commercial solution could address all seven use cases through separately configured departmental instances, including DoW-only capabilities. Integrated offerings and teaming arrangements may be described, with participating companies and roles identified.

3.1 Capability Statement Format

Length: Maximum 10 pages, excluding a company cover page. Only the first 10 pages of the capability statement will be reviewed.

Format: 8.5 x 11 inches, single-spaced, 12-point font, in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

Focus: Organize the narrative around the seven use cases. Describe product capabilities, comparable implementations, departmental configuration and data separation, interoperability among like requirements, and exclusion of VA access to DoW HRM and IHPP capabilities. Distinguish current capabilities from configuration, integration, third-party components, or development. Identify material gaps, assumptions, and Government dependencies.

Minimum Product Maturity The Government is seeking a mature, commercially available solution in which the joint core credentialing, privileging, professional practice evaluation, peer review, reporting, and interoperability capabilities are fully developed, operational, and deployable at the time of response. These capabilities should require only configuration, approved integrations, data migration, and department-specific implementation within the separate DoW and VA instances. Responses that depend on material new product development to provide the joint core capabilities will not be considered further for purposes of this market research.

The Government recognizes that certain DoW-specific capabilities, including DoW-only healthcare risk management, impaired healthcare provider and operational workflows, may require additional development. For each such capability not currently available, the respondent shall clearly identify the capability available today and describe the proposed development approach, dependencies, milestones, and realistic timeframe for delivering a production-ready capability. Responses that do not clearly distinguish current capability from planned development will be considered incomplete.

Considerations:

· Address unsupported capabilities and discuss vendor engagement and responsibilities during implementation, migration, security authorization, accessibility, training, and post-implementation support.

· Describe licensing and cost drivers for each departmental instance, DoW-only HRM, and interoperability.

· Draft Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM): A preliminary, high-level estimate of the potential cost for implementing your capabilities to address the seven use cases. The ROM should include key cost drivers and assumptions.

Responses must address ALL SEVEN use cases to be considered as complete and be assessed. Late or non-compliant submissions will not be assessed or considered.

3.2 Company Information

3.2.1 Provide the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the designated point of contact.

3.2.2 Provide the company name, Unique Entity ID, CAGE code, applicable NAICS codes, business size and socioeconomic status, and date of last applicable certification. Identify applicable Government contract vehicles, to include contract numbers, expiration dates, and whether the requirements herein can be provided under that contract vehicle and under what Category, if applicable. Contract-vehicle information is for market research only; holding a particular vehicle is not a condition of responding.

3.3 System for Award Management

Provide the company's System for Award Management (SAM) registration status. Any subsequent solicitation will identify the registration and eligibility requirements applicable to a potential award.

3.4 Questions and Answers

No formal question period is planned for this RFI. Respondents should identify ambiguities, additional information needed, and recommended refinements in their capability statements.

3.5 Proprietary Information

Respondents are responsible for clearly marking proprietary, restricted, or competition-sensitive information. Such information will be handled in accordance with applicable requirements. Any proposed access by Government support contractors will be addressed after those contractors are identified and respondent permission is obtained. Do not submit patient records or identifiable practitioner case information.4.0 Joint Credentialing and Privileging Use Cases The following seven use cases communicate core capability objectives rather than an exhaustive specification or prescribed design. Data sources are illustrative. Respondents should address separate departmental instances of a single vendor solution, interoperability among like requirements, and department-specific applicability. Use Case 6 and 7 applies only to DoW and does not authorize VA use of the HRM component.

USE CASE 1: End-to-End Credentialing and Privileging Problem: A practitioner entering or continuing service needs an accurate, current credentialing record and the appropriate authorization to practice. Legacy applications, separate documents, and manual reviews make it difficult to follow a file from enrollment through verification, approval, renewal, and departure. Staff and practitioners need a shared understanding of missing information, review status, and expiring credentials.

Data Sources: VetPro and CCQAS records; practitioner applications and supporting documents; human resources and personnel systems; the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB); licensing boards and other approved primary and secondary verification sources.

Desired Capability: DoW and VA seek an integrated practitioner record and electronic workflow within each department's instance, supporting enrollment, self-service applications, verification, discrepancy resolution, committee review, electronic signatures, credentialing and privileging decisions, renewals, and exit review. The solution should accommodate different practitioner categories and departmental approval processes, provide continuous credential monitoring and actionable alerts, and make current status available to authorized staff and connected systems. Approved cross-department information exchange should reduce duplicate entry without combining the departments' records or decision authority into a single shared instance.

USE CASE 2: Interoperability Problem: A practitioner with a valid appointment in one department may provide temporary, shared, or telehealth services in the other. Separate departmental instances must exchange the information needed for common C&P workflows without repeated collection, delayed updates, or unauthorized access to department-specific records.

Data Sources: Primary- and receiving-facility practitioner records in the DoW and VA instances; approved sharing relationships; appointment and privilege decisions; Focused Professional Practice Evaluation (FPPE), Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation (OPPE), and Performance Assessment Review (PAR) information; exit reviews; and authorized adverse-action or event notices.

Desired Capability: DoW and VA seek secure, bidirectional exchange between their separate instances for like C&P requirements. Authorized staff should be able to initiate and approve sharing, confirm a valid primary-facility appointment, review approved information, exchange decisions, and receive continuing credential updates. The solution should support initial receipt notices, evaluation and exit-review exchange, and reportable adverse-action or event notifications when privileges, practice status, or licensure change, including the departments' one-day initiation requirement. Exchanges should preserve practitioner and facility associations, source attribution, permissions, and auditability. Each department retains its privileging and information-release authority; sharing does not grant privileges or access to the DoW HRM component. Only specifically authorized, releasable information should cross between instances. These capabilities are expected in initial joint operations.

USE CASE 3: Professional Practice Evaluation and Peer Review Problem: Clinical leaders need to connect a practitioner's qualifications and privileges with evidence of clinical performance. Disconnected evaluation and peer-review processes limit timely review and make it difficult to track follow-up, identify performance trends, and preserve a complete decision history.

Data Sources: VA Federal Electronic Health Record (EHR), VistA, and MHS GENESIS data as applicable to the respective department; clinical indicators; chart reviews; peer and proctor evaluations; and FPPE, OPPE, PAR, and exit-review records.

Desired Capability: Each department seeks configured professional practice evaluation, peer-review, and committee workflows supporting documented assessments, follow-up, and privileging decisions. Authorized users should be able to collect performance evidence, assign reviews, track deadlines, document findings, and route recommendations and approvals. The two instances should exchange approved evaluation information for shared practitioners while preserving department-specific review, access, and release controls. Automation should assist reviewers while leaving final determinations with authorized Government officials. This use case supports VA and DoW C&P evaluation needs; the separate DoW-only HRM case-management capability is described in Use Case 6.

USE CASE 4: Enterprise Privileging and Clinical Assignments Problem: Practitioners may move among facilities, support telehealth, or receive operational assignments while holding different privileges and scopes of practice. DoW also needs to process groups of practitioners for temporary assignments and deployments. Disconnected records make it difficult to determine which authorizations apply, what additional review is needed, and whether credentials or privileges remain valid for the assignment.

Data Sources: Enterprise and facility privilege catalogs; practitioner credential and privilege records; non-privileged scope-of-practice and clinical assignment records; Inter-facility Credential Transfer Briefs (ICTBs); assignment orders; and approved personnel and readiness systems.

Desired Capability: The solution should support DoW enterprise privileging, privileged and non-privileged clinical assignments, temporary and telehealth practice, and individual or group ICTB workflows within the DoW instance. Authorized staff should be able to identify applicable privileges and limitations, route approvals, accommodate assignment-date or approval-authority changes, and identify expirations affecting an assignment. DoW seeks continuity of C&P work during connectivity interruptions and controlled synchronization when connectivity returns. VA's instance would support its applicable temporary, shared-provider, and telehealth workflows. Exchange between instances should preserve departmental rules, including privileges by proxy where authorized, without imposing automatic reciprocity.

USE CASE 5: Enterprise Visibility and Secure Solution Delivery Problem: Program leaders need dependable visibility into credentialing workload, practice status, and outstanding reviews within their department, with shared visibility only where authorized. Two separately configured instances of the same vendor solution must preserve historical records, protect sensitive information, and remain interoperable as configurations and software releases change.

Data Sources: VetPro and CCQAS data and documents; departmental credentialing, privileging, and evaluation records; approved EHR and personnel feeds; identity and access services; and audit and service-performance information. DoW HRM records remain within the DoW instance, subject to its access and release controls.

Desired Capability: DoW and VA seek scalable, accessible, contractor-hosted solution instances with departmental dashboards, reporting, administration, and security controls. Describe migration and reconciliation into the appropriate instance, retention, data portability, training, sustainment, and support. Explain how department-specific configuration, role assignments, modules, and authorization boundaries are managed while preserving controlled interoperability and preventing cross-instance access beyond approved exchanges. Describe current product FedRAMP status, supported DoW cloud impact levels, and support for each department's security authorization. Explain how upgrades, recovery, interface monitoring, and compatibility testing would sustain both instances without enabling DoW-only HRM functionality or exposing HRM case files to VA. Identify dependencies for initial joint operations.

USE CASE 6: DoW-Only Healthcare Risk Management (HRM) Problem: DoW needs to manage healthcare risk across military treatment facilities (MTFs), Operational Clinical Services (OCS), and headquarters. CCQAS has limited workflow flexibility, document management, trend analysis, and reporting. DoW needs to track potentially compensable events, malpractice claims, healthcare-related active-duty deaths and disabilities, clinical adverse actions, and other adjudicated or reportable actions through review and closure. These HRM activities are distinct from VA's C&P evaluation workflows.

Data Sources: CCQAS HRM and medical quality assurance (MQA) records; authorized MTF/OCS case files, clinical evidence, and peer reviews; MHS GENESIS; Military Claims Systems and Treasury Judgement Fund information; provider notifications; and approved national or state reporting and release-of-information records.

Desired Capability: DoW seeks an HRM component integrated with C&P within its own instance. Authorized users should be able to create uniquely identified cases, organize evidence, apply the MQA assessment workflow, assign facility/headquarters and external peer or panel reviews, track milestones, and document determinations and closure. The component should support clinical adverse-action and due-process documentation, provider practice restrictions, and impaired-provider program coordination. Standard-of-care outcomes should distinguish met, not met, and indeterminate findings, with supporting determinations retained.

The component should support notifications to significantly involved providers, milestone and final-decision letters with receipt tracking, controlled release-of-information processing, approved external reporting, audit histories, role-based dashboards, trend analysis, and lessons learned. DoW also seeks continuity of HRM work during connectivity interruptions, with controlled synchronization when connectivity returns. Final clinical, administrative, reporting, and release decisions remain with authorized Government officials.

This component is for DoW use only, excluded from the VA instance and VA user access. Interoperability should not replicate HRM case files into VA or expose DoW HRM workflows. Exchange of approved review results, provider-status information, or adverse-action notices is a controlled release supporting common requirements, not VA use of HRM. Describe how this separation supports Use Case 2.

USE CASE 7: DOW-Only DoW-Impaired Healthcare Providers (IHPP) Problem: DoW needs to manage impaired healthcare providers across military treatment facilities (MTFs), Operational Clinical Services (OCS), and headquarters. CCQAS currently does not have workflow flexibility, document management, trend analysis, and reporting for IHPP cases. DoW needs to track IHPP evaluations, enrollments, and reentry pathways. These IHPP activities are distinct from VA's C&P evaluation workflows.

Data Sources: CarePoint IHPP and medical quality assurance (MQA) records; MTF/OCS case files, random screenings, provider notifications; and approved regulatory agency reporting and release-of-information records.

Desired Capability: DoW seeks an IHPP component integrated with C&P within its own instance. Authorized users should be able to create uniquely identified cases, organize documentation and reports, apply the IHPP MQA assessment workflow, assign facility/headquarters and panel reviews, track milestones, and document determinations and closure. The component should support IHPP documentation, provider practice limitations, and program coordination.

The component should support notifications to enrolled providers, milestone and final-decision letters with receipt tracking, controlled release-of-information processing, approved external reporting, audit histories, role-based dashboards, trend analysis, and lessons learned. DoW also seeks continuity of IHPP work during connectivity interruptions, with controlled synchronization when connectivity returns. Final clinical, administrative, reporting, and release decisions remain with authorized Government officials.

This component is for DoW use only, excluded from the VA instance and VA user access. Interoperability should not replicate IHPP case files into VA or expose DoW IHPP workflows. Exchange of approved review results, provider-status information, or IHPP notices is a controlled release supporting common requirements, not VA use of IHPP.

Contact Information Primary Point of Contact: Kimberly Geran, Technology Acquisition Center, Kimberly.Geran@va.gov, (848) 377-5228.

Alternate Point of Contact: Ryan Sehulster, Technology Acquisition Center, Ryan.Sehulster@va.gov, (848) 377-5190.

Contracting Office: Technology Acquisition Center, 23 Christopher Way, Eatontown NJ 07724.

Attachments/Links These references provide supporting detail; the use-case narrative governs this RFI response, without a row-level compliance matrix. Apply the departmental scope and separate-instance scenario in this notice; broader risk-management references do not extend DoW-only HRM to VA. These materials are not a solicitation or authorization to begin work.

The Data Dictionary will be an evolving document and updated to meet the needs for interoperability not only for the DoW and VA Credentialing and Privileging program but also the larger Clinical Quality Management program when necessary.

Attachment No. 1: Consolidated Requirements Workbook_VA_DoW Requirements.xlsx (VA, DoW, and DoW Integration tabs) Attachment No. 2: Data DictionaryVA_DoW.xlsx Alternate RFI | Version 2.0 | Use-case-based market research Page 1 of 2