Attachment B - RFP Questions_Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- R408--DHO, Interoperability Pledge Program Support (Convener) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C10G25R0026
About this file
This document is an RFP Questions and Responses file for the VA's Interoperability Pledge Program Support (Convener) solicitation. The contract seeks a neutral convener to support a healthcare interoperability community of practice (IPCOP) involving 13 initial health system signatories, with the goal of improving healthcare data exchange standards. The procurement is set aside with a tiered evaluation approach prioritizing Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB), followed by other small business categories, with a total five-year period of performance beginning around September 30, 2025.
Key requirements include hosting a public-facing collaboration platform, facilitating up to four simultaneous workgroups, conducting hackathons/connectathons, developing strategic documents, and supporting standards development efforts. The contractor must maintain neutrality, with strict non-compete provisions prohibiting concurrent interoperability work. The solicitation includes specific labor category requirements, with most positions requiring a master's degree, and imposes constraints on potential conflicts of interest. The ultimate objectives are to reduce error rates in interoperable systems, increase successful data transmission, and develop consensus-driven healthcare data exchange standards across participating organizations.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 18
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
Sheet1
| # | Document | Page | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | PWS | pg 3 | Have additional signators signed the pledge since September 2024? | No. | |
| 2 | PWS 3.2.1 | Pg 7 | The PWS describes a public site for the IPCOP. Would this platform be on the VHA public domain or private domain? | The location is anticipated to be public facing, outside the VA firewall. | |
| 3 | PWS | pg 7 | Is the expectation that the contractor will host the knowledge management repository or will the VA host the repository? | The location is anticipated to be public facing, outside the VA firewall. | |
| 4 | PWS | pg 3 | Which VHA organization and division organized the initial Pledge and Signatories? | Digital Health Office | |
| 5 | PWS | pg 3 | Upon award of contract, will all libraries, archives, and documentation of the work done so far be made available? | Yes, any necessary VA and VHA resources will be made available. | |
| 6 | PWS | pg 3 | What interoperability standards are the signatories adhering to now? | While there are existing standards that the signatories are adhering to now, they are not being disclosed at this time. | |
| 7 | PWS | pg 3 | What interoperability issues have been identified thus far? | The purpose of this contract is to identify and define those issues. | |
| 8 | PWS | pg 3 | Who are the VA representatives to this Pledge project? | The contracting team is identified on the solicitation. The PM and COR information are not provided until awarded. | |
| 9 | PWS | pg 4 | "The IPCOP shall reside outside of VA/VHA firewall and be managed by the contractor." Will this be at a web site/web platform created and provided by the contractor or the VA? | The expectation is that it will be provided by the contractor. | |
| 10 | PWS | pg 4 | "The IPCOP shall be accessible by all stakeholders, managed by professional facilitators under an organization supporting a growing membership dedicated to supporting the Pledge." Will data and site security be provided by the contractor or the VA? | Data and site security will be managed by the contractor and public facing. | |
| 11 | PWS | p.17 | Will the Government allow additional years of experience to substitute for a Master's degree? For example, would someone with a Bachelor's and 15 years of experience be acceptable versus a Masters with 10 years of experience. | No. | |
| 12 | Attachment A - Performance Work Statement_Convener.pdf | 16-18 | Request that the Government please allow 2 additional years of experience (i.e. 12 years) and a Bachelor's degree to substitute for a Master's degree. | Experience will remain as solicited. | |
| 13 | PWS §2 Scope; §7 Place of Performance; §9 GFE/Facilities and RFP §C.13 IT Security | PWS p.4; p.15–16; RFP p.30 | Will the contractor‑hosted IPCOP repository require a VA ATO (or other security authorization) per VA Handbook 6500.3, and what boundary/data types will be in scope? | No. There is no expectation that proprietary information will be public facing. | |
| 14 | PWS §2 Scope; §3.2.1 Deliverables table | p.4; pp.13–14 | Who hosts and pays for the IPCOP collaboration & knowledge management repository, and what data retention/FOIA posture is expected (public vs FOUO)? | The contractor shall host and manage the repository. | |
| 15 | PWS §3.4 Optional Tasks (table) | pp.14–15 | What does “(4 NTE 20)” mean in the optional deliverables rows? Four per quarter? Four events NTE 20 days? NTE 20 total optional deliverables? | 4 reports up to 5 times. Revised. | |
| 16 | PWS §3.2.1 Workgroups | p.8–9 | For “up to four simultaneously‑run workgroups,” what are expected sizes, cycles, and throughput (e.g., average duration per workgroup, backlog of topics)? | This is unknown. Workgroup size is contingent upon interest of parties. | |
| 17 | PWS §3.2.1 and §3.2.2 Deliverables tables | pp.13–14 | Several deliverables list both “Recurring throughout PoP” and “As requested.” Which governs scheduling and acceptance? | The project manager and new requirements determine scheduling. Acceptance is determined by deliverable review by SME and Contract PM. | |
| 18 | PWS §8 Travel and RFP §B.2 Travel CLINs | PWS p.15–16; RFP pp.6–10 | Are conference registration fees reimbursable under the travel NTE (as the PWS suggests) and limited to the named events? | Yes. Travel is IAW the PWS. | |
| 19 | PWS §3.3 (Standards Coordination & Quarterly Reports) | p.9 & pp.14 | Please identify priority SDOs, standards families, and near‑term use cases (e.g., TEFCA/RCE, FHIR IGs) to target in the first two quarters. | This is unknown. Deliverables are contingent upon vendor engagement. | |
| 20 | PWS §1–2 (Community growth) | p.3–5 | How many IPCOP participants exist now, and what is the expected growth curve (e.g., # of signatories/quarter)? | Several health systems are working with VA to advance principles of the Pledge; however, VA has not formally extended the Pledge to signatories beyond the founding 13. | |
| 21 | PWS §3.2.2 (Strategic Docs) | pp.9 & 13 | The IPCOP “talking points” and “position papers” — are these public‑facing artifacts? What review/clearance lane is required (PM, OGC, Comms)? | These documents will be public facing, but should and will be reviewed by VA. The level of involvement will be provided after award. | |
| 22 | PWS §1 | pp. 3-4 | Regarding the scope and duration of the "non-compete" and "neutral convener" obligations, please define prohibited activities and duration post-award. Are carve-outs permitted for pre-existing VA work and unrelated commercial engagements? | The Standards Development community is very small. It is not uncommon for subject matter experts to consult on multiple projects for multiple stakeholders. It is the expectation that the convener vendor work exclusively on this project with no conflicts. | |
| 23 | PWS | pp. 8 | The PWS states: "Emphasis shall be placed on managing interoperability requirements and | ||
| developing testing criteria to ensure that the products created by the IPCOP are relevant to needs of Veterans." Does this mean that the Contract will be expected to test products created by IPCOP with Veterans directly, or is it sufficient to test only with IPCOP members? | It is sufficient to test with COP members but it is the expectation that VA will adopt the requirements and test criteria. | ||||
| 24 | PWS | pp. 9 | The PWS states: "The Contractor shall create and publish a paper on one topic discussed in the IPCOP that indicates success and failures identified by the IPCOP after review and | ||
| concurrence by VA Executive Leadership." Is this paper to be published publicly or internally to VA? | Public and external facing. | ||||
| 25 | PWS | pp. 10 | Could the government define the implementation community references in the following PWS requirement? "The Contractor shall facilitate testing of the standards and implementation guidance by identifying pilot implementations, organizing “Hackathons/Connectathons”, and soliciting feedback from the health IT standards and implementation community." | It is the position of the Government that the vendor provide solution proposals that are appropriate and implementable, ensuring impartiality, in the best interests of the industry. This includes: written recommendations and/or proposed language for updates to relevant standards and/or implementation guide(s), documentation of gap analysis, requirements gathered, and use cases identified; written proposal for conducting pilot tests of updated versions of the standard or implementation guide; written plan for “Hackathon/Connectathon” tracks to test updated versions of the standard or implementation guide; Development and execution of Hackathon/Connectathon events; and development of Implementation guides and/or Companion Guides. | |
| 26 | PWS | pp. 11 | Could the government confirm that the Monthly Executive Status Meeting & Monthly Staffing Roster are to be delivered every 30 calendar days following initial submission? | That is correct. | |
| 27 | PWS | pp 3-4 | The PWS requires that the Contractor serve as a “neutral convener” with no proprietary interest in the outcome. |
Can VA clarify what types of relationships or past work would be considered a “proprietary interest”?
Would participation in other VA health IT contracts (outside of convening) be viewed as compromising neutrality, or is neutrality specific to activities within IPCOP?
How does VA define “neutrality” in practice—e.g., must the convener avoid offering recommendations, or is facilitation with recommendations acceptable if transparently documented?
A proprietary interest refers to a legally recognized right or claim over tangible or intangible property. It signifies the exclusive right of an individual or entity to own or control an asset, which can include real estate, intellectual property, and financial assets. This interest is enforceable against third parties and is typically established through ownership, leases, or mortgages. Participation in other SDO's while simultaneously participating in contract activities would be considered a conflict and could compromise neutrality. The Convener has no ownership and associated rights of work products created in the IPCOP.
| 28 | PWS | pg 7 | If the contractor is hosting the collaboration knowledge management repository is the expectation that we would incur the cost of the technology and licensing? | Yes. |
| 29 | PWS | 4 | The PWS states that “the IPCOP shall reside outside of the VA/VHA firewall and be managed by the Contractor.” Could the Government please clarify expectations regarding the ownership and licensing of the collaboration software/platform used to host the IPCOP? Specifically: |
Does VA intend for the Contractor to procure and own the software licenses for the duration of the contract, or will VA provide Government-Furnished collaboration tools?
How does VA envision data ownership, access, and continuity being managed at contract closeout or transition to a new contractor?
| Are there specific FedRAMP or VA cybersecurity requirements the chosen platform must meet, beyond VA Handbook 6500 compliance? | Vendors will be provided with government furnished equipment and utilize MS Office 365. There is no known expectation to use specific collaboration tools or software. VHA currently does not have a transition/closeout plan. Given that this will be publicly facing, there is no expectation for FEDRAMP compliance or VA Authority to Operate (ATO). | ||||
| 30 | PWS | What are VA’s expectations for growth of IPCOP membership beyond the original 13 health system pledge signatories (e.g., targeted number of new members per year)? | This is unknown. This depends on market. Presently there are no known limitations. | ||
| 31 | PWS | Does VA envision the convener proactively recruiting new organizations, or will VA provide introductions to potential signatories? | Yes/Yes. | ||
| 32 | Attachment A - Performance Work Statement_Convener | 9 | Would VA consider updating Task 3.2.2 to have one annual updated IPCOP Strategic Analysis and Action Plan instead of semi-annual given both the resources required for a semi-annual update and the nature of impact analysis to have at least a year to demonstrate change? | No. | |
| 33 | Attachment A - Performance Work Statement_Convener | 9 | Can the VA confirm Task 3.2.2, Deliverable C includes one (1) position paper that summarizes the work of the IPCOP and workgroups and is not one (1) position paper for each workgroup? | Confirming 1 position paper per workgroup. | |
| 34 | Attachment A - Performance Work Statement_Convener | 10 | Can VA clarify if optional Task 3.4 can be executed more than once during a given contract year? | Yes. | |
| 35 | Attachment A - Performance Work Statement_Convener | 16 | Considering the scope of work and the need for the contractor to provide recommendations to the IPCOP, would VA consider adding a Subject Matter Expert or Project Director role to the Key Personnel? | Yes. Please refer to the updated PWS for Key personnel descriptions. | |
| 36 | Attachment A - Performance Work Statement_Convener | 14 | Would VA consider amending the Delivery Date for Optional Task 3.4, for execution of Hackathon/Connectathon to be 60 days instead of 30 days? | Not during base year. Open to discussing no cost mod during option period. | |
| 37 | PWS 3.2.1 | 7 | Does government require the contractor to provide tools licensing to enable virtual collaboration? Or would the tools and licensing be provided by VA and the contractor is required to use those tools for collaboration? There is no Other Direct Cost line item in the Pricing Schedule to allow tools licensing pricing. | Yes, however VA leverages Microsoft 365 that can be used both inside and outside VA firewall. | |
| 38 | PWS 3.2.1 | 8 | Could government confirm that up to four (4) simultaneously-run, independent workgroups is the scope for each year of performance. Who determines and approves the quantity of these workgroups? | Yes. VA COR in conjunction with VA PM and appropriate contractor SME's. | |
| 39 | PWS 3.4 | 10 | How many Hackathon/Connectathons government anticipate will be executed in a given year? | Up to 5 times. The PWS has been revised to provide clarity. | |
| 40 | Attachment_A_-_Performance_Work_Statement_Convener.pdf | Does VA have a list of prioritized use cases they would like to enable under this opportunity? | No. | ||
| 41 | Attachment A - Performance Work Statement_Convener | 14 | Would VA consider amending the Delivery Date for Optional Task 3.4, Deliverable A to within thirty (30) calendar days of request instead of ten (10) calendar days given the requirements to include documentation of a gap analysis, requirements gathered, and use cases identified? | Not during base year. Open to discussing no cost mod during option period. | |
| 42 | Attachment A - Performance Work Statement_Convener | 14 | Could government clarify what does 4 NTE 20 means? What is the frequency of deliverables? In what scenario 20 deliverables be needed? | 4 reports up to 5 times. Revised. | |
| 43 | Attachment A - Performance Work Statement | 8 | Deliverables B and C are the same for "Administrating the Community of Practice". Can the Government clarify the requirement? | Deliverable C has been removed. | |
| 44 | Attachment A - Performance Work Statement | 16 | The list of key personnel in the PWS does not align with the list of labor categories in the Pricing File, did the government intend for offerors to submit Key Personnel information for the Project Manager II role? | The requirement includes 3 Key Personnel as identified in the solicitation. | |
| 45 | Attachment A - Performance Work Statement and Attachment E - Proposal Price Template | PWS pg. 16 | |||
| Pricing LCAT Tab | In the PWS, the Program Manager III and the Informatics Specialist are required to have 10 years of experience but in the Pricing File they are required to have 15 years of experience. Can the Government clarify this requirement? | 10 years of experience is the minimum required. Attachment E has been updated. | |||
| 46 | Attachment_C_-_Past_Performance_References.pdf | Could VA confirm the minimum font size for Attachment_C_-_Past_Performance_References.pdf? | Font size shall be no smaller than 12-point. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. | ||
| 47 | Attachment_E_-_Proposal_Price_Template.xlsx | Could VA provide an estimated LOE (resources) for this contract? Is VA seeking only 4 FTE under this opportunity? | The LOE is provided. | ||
| 48 | Attachment_E_-_Proposal_Price_Template.xlsx | Would government pay for the travel, event hosting cost, logistics and event management? There is no line item in the CLIN002-Travel pricing schedule for the Hackathon travel. Please confirm. | Travel is NTE the cost provided. Coordination of travel for events not listed must be reviewed/approved by COR. | ||
| 49 | Attachment_E_-_Proposal_Price_Template.xlsx | Could government provide the LCAT description for the Project Manager II? It is not included in the LCAT description tab and nor in the Key Personnel. | Attachment E has been updated to provide the description. Project Manager II is not Key Personnel. | ||
| 50 | Attachment_E_-_Proposal_Price_Template.xlsx | Would the government permit the Offeror to propose additional labor categories (LCATs) beyond those specified in the solicitation, in order to provide optimal staffing solutions that best meet or exceed the contract requirements? | The Offeror is to submit a proposal that provides the best value to the Government. | ||
| 51 | Attachment E - Proposal Price Template | Tab - LCAT | The current LCAT descriptions require a Masters Degree. Can years of experience be used in place of the Master's degree? | No. | |
| 52 | Attachment E - Proposal Price Template | Base Period and OPYR Tabs | Do the hours provided in the pricing file include hours for the optional Task 4 Development and Publication of a New Implementation Guide or Standard? | The hours provided reflect the LOE for the tasks. | |
| 53 | Attachment E - Proposal Price Template | Base Period and OPYR Tabs | Are we able to provide additional labor categories that may allow for cost savings to the Government? | The Offeror is to submit a proposal that provides the best value to the Government. | |
| 54 | Attachment E - Proposal Price Template | Base Period and OPYR Tabs | HL7 Working Group Meetings and Connectathons are not included in the CLIN 0002 Travel. Should we include these? | The events were used to determine the NTE cost for the Travel CLIN. Travel must be approved by the PM. See PWS. | |
| 55 | Attachment E - Proposal Price Template | LCAT Tab | Are we able to substitute the required Masters Degrees with equivalent years of experience? | No. | |
| 56 | Attachment_E_-_Proposal_Price_Template.xlsx | Could government confirm that the Informatic specialist/BioInformatician is assigned 1440 hours? Please provide rationale for assigning 1440 hours vs. 1920 | The LOE is provided for the labor categories as shown. | ||
| 57 | Attachment_E_-_Proposal_Price_Template.xlsx | How is the optional Task 3.4 priced in the CLIN-001 and CLIN-002. There is no line item for that. | Pricing for tasks identified in the PWS are to be reflected in the total for CLIN (X)001. | ||
| 58 | Attachment E Proposal Price Template | N/A | How should the contractor include costs for the collaboration tools, web page, and collaboration and knowledge management repository in the pricing volume base year and option year price tabs? | Pricing for tasks identified in the PWS are to be reflected in the total for CLIN (X)001. | |
| 59 | Attachment E Proposal Price Template | N/A | May contractors add other additional LCATs beyond those specified? | The Offeror is to submit a proposal that provides the best value to the Government. | |
| 60 | Attachment E Proposal Price Template | N/A | Can offerors increase, decrease, or redistribute hours across LCATs? | The Offeror is to submit a proposal that provides the best value to the Government. | |
| 61 | Attachment E Proposal Price Template | N/A | Can the Government please describe the skill sets required of the Program Manager II specified the the Base and Optional Periods of performance but not in the LCAT list? | The Program Manager III description is provided. | |
| 62 | QASP Attachment 1 – Performance Requirements Summary | QASP p.9 | AQL of 100% on‑time delivery — is this intentional or should there be a tolerance (e.g., 95%)? | QASP AQL amended to 95%. Attachment F has been updated. | |
| 63 | Attachments G, H, and I | Multiple | Do the OCI, non-compete, and NDA requirements in attachments G, H, and I for this RFP apply to subcontractors? | Yes. | |
| 64 | Attachments G, H, & I | N/A | Are signed copies of these documents expected to be submitted with offerors proposals? | Documents will be signed upon award. | |
| 65 | Attachment H - Non-Compete Agreement | 1 | Can the Government provide an example of how an offeror would compete with the proposed work both with another agency and company? | The Standards Development community is very small. It is not uncommon for subject matter experts to consult on multiple projects for multiple stakeholders. It is the expectation that the convener vendor work exclusively on this project with no conflicts. | |
| 66 | Attachment H Non Compete Agreement | 1 | Could the key personnel performing the work be firewalled for the duration of the contract versus the company they work for? | Yes. Those who do not sign a Non-Compete Agreement (NCA) and Non-Disclosure Agreement(NDA) have an unfair competitive advantage. | |
| 67 | Attachment H Non Compete Agreement | 1 | If the awarded offeror has an active VA contract with interoperability tasks identified in the PWS, will that active contract be terminated early? | If awarded, during the entire term of the Non-Compete Agreement (NCA), the Offeror must not perform any work identifying interoperability requirements and associated infrastructure. | |
| 68 | Attachment H Non Compete Agreement | 1 | If a offeror has an active VA contract with interoperability tasks identified in the PWS, are they allowed to compete on this contract? If the answer is no, how will the government validate that a offeror and their other vested companies (i.e. Joint Ventures) do not have any active interoperability contracts? | If awarded, during the entire term of the Non-Compete Agreement (NCA), the Offeror must not perform any work identifying interoperability requirements and associated infrastructure. | |
| 69 | Attachment H Non Compete Agreement | 1 | If the awarded offeror has a vested interest in other companies (i.e. Joint Ventures, Mentor Proteges), are those associated companies also under the non-compete agreement? | Yes. Those who do not sign a Non-Compete Agreement (NCA) have an unfair competitive advantage. | |
| 70 | Attachment H Non Compete Agreement | 1 | Attachment H states: "participate or have any agreement with any other competing company/organization/agency." Please clarify what the government means by competing agency. Does this mean a vendor is excluded from interoperability work under DoD or HHS? | If awarded, during the entire term of the Non-Compete Agreement (NCA), the Offeror must not perform any work identifying interoperability requirements and associated infrastructure. | |
| 71 | Attachment H Non Compete Agreement | 1 | Attachment H states: "Offeror must not perform any work identifying interoperability requirements and associated infrastructure." Please clarify what the government considers “associated infrastructure”. | Interoperability requirements within the context of VA and SDOs involve the specifications, protocols, and standards necessary to ensure seamless, secure, and effective exchange of healthcare data across different information systems, both within the VA infrastructure and with external entities. | |
| 72 | Attachment H - Non-Compete Agreement | Page 1 | Could you please clarify the definitions and intent behind key terms in the non-compete clause in Attachment H? This means that the Offeror must not perform any work identifying interoperability requirements and associated infrastructure"? Specifically, what constitutes a "competing" company, organization, or agency (including whether this extends to other federal agencies such as DoD, HHS, or CMS), and what is the scope of prohibited activities related to "identifying interoperability requirements and associated infrastructure" (e.g., does this include defining or implementing healthcare interoperability requirements in general, or is it limited to efforts that directly compete with formulating standards for the VA or at the national level)? | This contract is specific to consensus building within the health care interopability community standards development, and seeks to mitigate unfair competitive advantage. | |
| 73 | Attachment H - Non-Compete Agreement | Page 1 | Regarding the non-compete clause in Attachment H, this appears overly broad and could create organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) that preclude the Offeror from participating in other VA contracts. Could you provide clarification on whether this clause would restrict the Offeror from working on any implementation contracts within the VA that involve interoperability requirements, and if so, how this aligns with typical VA procurement practices where such requirements are common? | This contract is specific to consensus building within the health care interopability community standards development, and seeks to mitigate unfair competitive advantage. | |
| 74 | Attachment H - Non-Compete Agreement | Page 1 | With respect to the non-compete clause in Attachment H, could you clarify its application to FHIR-related projects or standards definition work, given the widespread use of FHIR in healthcare interoperability across government and commercial sectors? Specifically, would this clause apply to any FHIR-related efforts within the VA or other federal agencies, and is the intent to bar the Offeror from any other healthcare-related interoperability contracts—government (e.g., with DoD, HHS, or CMS) or commercial—during the term plus 2 years, or are there narrower limitations that would allow continued service on non-competing projects? | This contract is specific to consensus building within the health care interopability community standards development, and seeks to mitigate unfair competitive advantage. | |
| 75 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | Could VA please provide the rationale behind requiring the contractor to sign the Non-Compete Agreement? Will this prevent the contractor from supporting initiatives under major programs like EHRM and IHT 2.0? | Yes. Those who do not sign a Non-Compete Agreement (NCA) have an unfair competitive advantage. | ||
| 76 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | Could the government clarify whether the statement "the Offeror will not work, participate or have any agreement with any other competing company/organization/agency" applies exclusively to the scope and period of performance of this contract? Does it extend to all Interoperability related business activities conducted by the Offeror, including unrelated projects and contracts? Does this restriction apply only to VA-related contracts, or to all healthcare interoperability work (even outside VA projects)? | Those who do not sign a Non-Compete Agreement (NCA) have an unfair competitive advantage. | ||
| 77 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | Does this restriction apply nationwide, or only to work related to VA facilities and projects? Can the Offeror still perform interoperability work for non-U.S. government clients or private sector healthcare organizations? | This contract is specific to consensus building within the health care industry interopability community standards development, and seeks to mitigate unfair competitive advantage. | ||
| 78 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | Please specify how the government defines a "competing company/organization/agency" in this context. Provide any specific examples. Is VA or DHA considered as an agency/organization in this context? | Yes. This contract is specific to consensus building within the health care industry interopability community standards development, and seeks to mitigate unfair competitive advantage. | ||
| 79 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | Would VA consider removing the Non-Compete requirement? This requirement is restrictive and would discourage SDVOSBs and other small businesses to respond. | No. | ||
| 80 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | Is the 24-month period after the contract has been completed negotiable (e.g., can it be shortened)? | Yes. | ||
| 81 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | If the contract ends early or is terminated for convenience, does the 24-month period still fully apply? | The period after performance ends would apply. | ||
| 82 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | Does the restriction automatically end if the VA does not exercise option years or extend the contract? | The period after performance ends would apply. | ||
| 83 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | Do subcontractors have to sign their own non-compete, or is this agreement binding on them automatically? | The awarded vendor signs the agreement(s) that all parties are to adhere to. | ||
| 84 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | How is “confidential/sensitive information” defined? | VA sensitive information as defined in VAAR 802.101. | ||
| 85 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | Does using general industry knowledge (not VA-specific) violate this agreement? | No. | ||
| 86 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | Is there room to negotiate narrower terms (e.g., limiting to VA-related interoperability work only)? | No. | ||
| 87 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | Would the VA consider a carve-out for unrelated interoperability projects? | No. | ||
| 88 | Attachment_H_-_Non-Compete_Agreement.pdf | What is the definition of “identifying interoperability requirements and associated infrastructure” within the confines of this agreement and scope of work? | Interoperability requirements within the context of VA and SDOs involve the specifications, protocols, and standards necessary to ensure seamless, secure, and effective exchange of healthcare data across different information systems, both within the VA infrastructure and with external entities. The PWS has been updated. | ||
| 89 | OCI (Attachment I) | pp.1–2 | Please confirm whether active participation in SDO work (e.g., HL7 balloting) is acceptable if disclosed/mitigated under the OCI plan. | Active SDO work is approved if disclosed (outside the project) and is suspended upon award. | |
| 90 | 36C10G25R0026.docx; Travel (NTE cost CLIN) | pp. 7-9 | Are the listed events (e.g., HIMSS, TEFCA/ONC) mandatory annually or "as requested" within the Travel NTE? | The events were used to determine the NTE cost for the Travel CLIN. All travel must first be approved by the PM. See PWS. | |
| 91 | RFP | Would VA view a dual-role team (technical + facilitation) as compliant with the neutrality requirement, or should the convener role be strictly separate from technical support? | The proposed strategy will be reviewed to ensure neutrality. | ||
| 92 | RFP | Will VA require specific labor categories (e.g., Program Manager, Standards SME, Facilitation Lead) to be named at proposal submission, or can some be provided at contract kickoff? | Proposals shall include information regarding key personnel at submission. | ||
| 93 | 36C10G25R0026 | Would VA consider moving the due date to the week of September 8 to accommodate observance of Labor Day? | The due date will be extended to 9/10/25. | ||
| 94 | RFQ | pg 49 | The statement is made: "Additionally, the Offeror shall provide a REDACTED version of Volume I – Technical and Volume I, Appendix A. What document does "...and Volume I, Appendix A." refer to? There is no corresponding document noted in the table of submission files on page 50. | The RFP has been revised to remove the Appendix A reference. | |
| 95 | 36C10G25R0026 | 7 | It is unclear what activities the vendor is required to perform when attending a HIMSS conference or TEFCA annual meetings. Please clarify what tasks the offeror are to perform when attending these events. | Activities are presently unknown, however, contingent on the development of products from the project and what is needed to present to industry as representative of IPCOP when attending HIMSS conference or TEFCA annual meetings. | |
| 96 | 36C10G25R0026 | 49, Section 2.c. | Instructions state to redact Volume I, Appendix A. Please clarify what Appendix A is. | The Appendix A reference has been removed. | |
| 97 | 36C10G25R0026 | 49, Section 2.c. | Instructions state key personnel employment history does not need to be redacted. Do key personnel names need to be redacted? | Yes. | |
| 98 | 36C10G25R0026.docx & Attachment C - Past Performance References.pdf | 50 | RFP states for the Past Performance that the project are to be "(2 pages per reference as shown on the form)". The Attachment C form has 1 whole page allocated to "performance issues or problems that occurred, corrective actions taken". If the offeror does not have any content to include in that section, can they use the extra page to expand on the "Description of the Requirement"? | Offeror must adhere to page limitation for submission. | |
| 99 | 36C10G25R0026.docx | 52 | The Past Performance requirements include "In the event an assessment was not completed or marked as Final in CPARS/PPIRS for the contract/order .." CPARS will reflect "Evaluation Type = Interim" if the contract is on-going during the annual evaluation and "Final" only if the contract is complete. Please consider updating this requirement to allow for "Evaluation Type = Interim" for the CPARS, so CPARS can be submitted for current and on-going projects. | Interim evaluations are acceptable. The RFP has been updated. | |
| 100 | RFP §E.5 (Neutrality requirement) and PWS §1 Introduction | p.47; p.3–4 | How is “no proprietary interest in the outcome” defined for an SDO‑active vendor (e.g., participation, balloting rights, or authored IP)? | The Convener has no ownership and associated rights of work products created in the IPCOP. | |
| 101 | RFP §E.7 (Gate on Technical) | p.56 | Define the pass threshold for the Technical factor (since other factors are not evaluated if Technical “does not meet”). | The Technical Factor information is provided in the RFP. | |
| 102 | 36C10G25R0026.docx | 52 | Could VA confirm if the past performance example submitted by the offeror has to be performed as prime or subcontractor? | Past Performance references are needed for prime and subcontractors. At least 1 reference must be for the prime. | |
| 103 | N/A | N/A | What existing infrastructure or platforms does VA currently use for community recruitment? | There is no automated infrastructure and approach for engagement. Engagement is conducted individually by Government Business Owner, Program Manager and stakeholders who work within the existing program. | |
| 104 | N/A | N/A | What existing infrastructure or platforms does VA currently use for community collaboration? | There is no automated approach for engagement. | |
| 105 | N/A | N/A | Have there been previous attempts to establish this IPCOP or similar effort to achieve the same goal? | No. This is an inaugural approach in pursuit of industry neutrality that was not initiated by VA. | |
| 106 | N/A | N/A | What specific interoperability gaps have been identified by current signatories? | Many have been identified but will not be disclosed prior to award. Currently we have an unsustainable error rate for interoperable systems. | |
| 107 | N/A | N/A | How will VA measure the success of the IPCOP? | Reduction in error rates, and increase in successful data transmission measures. | |
| 108 | N/A | N/A | Does the government have a prioritized list of which specific priority use cases or interoperability challenge it wants addressed first? | No. | |
| 109 | N/A | N/A | Are there specific standards or implementation guides VA expects to be developed? | No. | |
| 110 | VHA Interoperability Website | N/A | Have the other nine of 13 systems gone live with patient/veteran status reporting since September 2024? | 10 are currently live. | |
| 111 | N/A | N/A | Who ultimately controls decision-making in this community of practice? | No one controls the community of practice currently, Convener scope of work is to define consensus and decision making. | |
| 112 | N/A | N/A | Will the CoP signatories dedicate staff resources for CoP working groups? | Yes, they will designate participants | |
| 113 | N/A | N/A | Are the signatories willing to share operational data or use cases? | Need to confirm what sites actually have operational data. We only have data from 4 of the 10 sites I believe. But need to confirm. | |
| 114 | N/A | N/A | Is there interest in the involvement of EHR providers other than Oracle or Epic? | Yes. | |
| 115 | N/A | N/A | The signatories are all large organizations. Is there interest in the involvement of smaller providers such as community hospitals and smaller providers? | Yes; however, they must have EPIC or Oracle to collect data and demonstrate effectiveness. |
&"-,Bold"Interoperability Pledge
| Program Support_Convener | &"-,Bold"Attachment B |
| RFP Questions | &"-,Bold"Solicitation No 36C10G25R0026 |
Source Selection Information FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .