HT001125RE019 Atch 07 QA Responses (0002).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 98 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HT001125RE019
- Issued by
-
Defense Health Agency
About this file
This file contains a detailed Q&A document (Attachment 07) for a Defense Health Agency (DHA) solicitation (HT001125RE019) for data governance and enterprise data catalog services. The solicitation is a small business set-aside seeking a contractor to transform DHA's data management into a unified, secure ecosystem through a 12-month base contract with optional objectives. The primary goals are to establish a comprehensive data asset inventory, define governance procedures, and validate a federated data model using a data mesh approach.
The contract focuses on ten key objectives, with the base effort covering Objectives 1-6 and 10, and Objectives 7-9 structured as options. Critical requirements include conducting a comprehensive Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for a Data Inventory Management System, implementing robust metadata management, evaluating federated governance, and developing a self-service end-user experience. The solicitation emphasizes creating an Enterprise Data Catalog that enhances data governance, improves data discoverability, ensures regulatory compliance, and supports strategic data utilization across the DHA enterprise. The period of performance is from September 30, 2025, to September 29, 2026, with award anticipated by September 30, 2025, using RDT&E funds.
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | SOO Reference | Question | Response |
| 1 | Solicitation document page 27, "Reference Content" and page 28 Volume 3: Factor 3 - Price | Does DHA anticipate identifying specific Key Personnel positions or labor categories for this effort, or is the labor mix fully at the offeror’s discretion? The document makes multiple mentions of "Key Personnel", but it's unclear if the offeror is meant to define them or if they should be omitted. | Revised--see Amendment 0002 |
| 2 | Solicitation document, page 7, "Deliveries or Performance" and page 28, "Volume 3: Factor 3 - Price" | Does DHA have an expected number of FTEs or staffing level in mind to deliver on the SOO objectives, or should offerors propose fully based on their technical approach? | Offeror's discretion. This is a performance based level of effort. |
| 3 | Solicitation document page 28, "Volume 3: Factor 3 - Price" | Can DHA provide an estimated budget range or ceiling value for this effort to help offerors appropriately size their technical and pricing proposals? The scope of what capabilities are being proposed could vary significantly with the budget | No estimated budget will be provided. |
| 4 | SOO 1.2 | How will technical, past performance, and price be weighted in the best-value tradeoff decision? Will a past performance with other non-DoD Federal Health agencies be weighted higher than non-health data related past performance at the DoD? | See Amendment 0002 |
| 5 | Solicitation document, page 7, "Deliveries or Performance" and page 28, "Volume 3: Factor 3 - Price" | Should we be pricing for option periods? If so, does the government have a preference for how many? The Pricing section mentions CLINs for base year and option periods should be broken out separately, but the Deliveries or Performance section makes no mention of option periods. | This was meant for hypothetical--mention of "option period" removed from Pricing section |
| 6 | Solicitation document, page 26, (b) Volume 2: Factor 2 - Past Performance Questionnaires | The PPQ is limited to 18 pages, but the past PPQs seem to be four pages max each for just three past performances, which would make 12 pages. Is there something else that is expected for the PPQ that might take up an additional 6 pages? | Revised -- see Amendment 0002 |
| 7 | Reference Solicitation: Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters, (c ) Volume 3 Price | Given that pricing is based on FFP with required detailed BOE submissions for proposed labor mix, does the Government intend to provide workload or historical data? Without baseline data, offerors must make assumptions that may introduce significant cost and performance risk to both parties. | No. This is a FFP performance based level of effort. All pricing proposed should be inclusive of expenses to be incurred in the performance of the objectives and reflected in your monthly unit price accordingly. |
| 8 | Reference Solicitation: Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters, (b) Volume 3 Past Performance | As this is a small business set-aside procurement, we respectfully request reconsideration of the requirement that two of three past performance references be submitted solely from the prime offeror. Per 13 CFR 125.2(g), when a small business prime does not independently possess all required past performance, the agency must evaluate the prime's first-tier small business subcontractors/teaming partners as part of the prime's capabilities. Would the Government consider adjusting the evaluation language to allow past performance references from first-tier small business teammates to count toward the prime's past performance evaluation? | Revised--see Amendment 0002 |
| 9 | Reference Solicitation: SF 1449, Block 8 Offer Due Date | The requirements in Subfactors 1 and 2 under Volume 1 Technical Capability, combined with the labor mix and detailed BOE, are significant. To allow offerors sufficient time to prepare thorough and compliant proposals, would the Government consider extending the proposal due date by two weeks? Additionally, if substantive amendments are issued in response to offeror questions (e.g., regarding workload data or past performance evaluation criteria), would the Government consider providing sufficient additional time beyond the two weeks to allow offerors to incorporate those changes? | No extensions will be granted. |
| 10 | HT001125RE019 | The current requirements—a 40-page technical volume, cost model build-out, and signed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) within a two-week timeframe (released 9/5 due 9/19)— These requirements are significant for small businesses to respond within 14 days, which greatly reduces competition. Would the government consider granting an extension for this solicitation? | No extensions will be granted. |
| 11 | SOO n/a. Reference: Solicitation – HT001125RE019.pdf | Question: Given the complexity of the solicitation requirements, the substantial number of pages required for the technical solution, and the administrative effort and lead time required with coordinating Past Performance Questionnaire submissions from multiple clients/agencies, would the Government please consider extending the proposal due date until at least 3 October 2025? |
| Reasoning: As currently structured, the condensed timeline unintentionally impedes fair competition for qualified Small Businesses, which often lack the required resources to rapidly compile such extensive submissions. An extension would ensure Offerors have the opportunity to provide the Government with the highest-quality, fully compliant proposals and ultimately support the Government’s interest in preserving robust competition. | No extensions will be granted. | |||
| 12 | General | Can DHA confirm the expected timeline for award and transition to full operational capability, given the base POP start date? | Award is 30 Sept 25 Completion should be per requirement 12 months | |
| 13 | Page 11 Section B Objective 2 | Will DHA provide an initial authoritative list of existing systems/data sources for the Data Inventory Management System (DIMS), or is the contractor responsible for full discovery? | DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Through existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schemas, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gather the necessary information and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don’t have a comprehensive list of data assets or a data catalog (hence this RFI), the MDR and M2 data dictionaries provide highly insightful information for some of the MHS data and are available for download at: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents. Please see Part I (objectives 1-3) for more information. | |
| 14 | Page 12: Section C Objective 3 | Will DHA provide sandbox or testbed environments for evaluating AI/ML readiness, or must the contractor provision those under this contract? | This is a pilot, and the solutions may not become enterprise capabilities within 12 months. Therefore, integration or testing for a large number of users is not required. The vendor should focus on (1) creating a data inventory, including a data catalog, and (2) establishing governance within a federated data model, regardless of the platform, cloud provider, or technology used for the pilot data mesh. DHA will provide vendor access to the DHA Pilot Data Mesh UAT system. | |
| 15 | Soliciation Page 26 Subfactor 2: Statement of Work | Are the option year CLINs expected to mirror base year requirements, or will they introduce new tasking (e.g., scaling data mesh enterprise-wide)? | Option CLINs are for different objectives --see Statement of Objectives | |
| 16 | General | Is there an incumbent? If yes, please confirm the contract # and company name. | No. New requirement. | |
| 17 | 5.3 Contract Deliverables, 5. Automated Metadata Management System, Pg. 20 | For metadata harvesting: Will DHA provide APIs and technical documentation for all required source systems, or should the contractor plan for discovery and reverse engineering? | DHA will provide technical documentation. This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration with many external systems or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated model regardless what platform or cloud provider or technology used. | |
| 18 | General | Will DHA require the contractor to integrate with existing Zero Trust or DoD CDAO security frameworks beyond HIPAA/FISMA/NIST compliance? | This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated. Vendor will be given access to the prototype data grid in UAT to perform evaluation, analysis, and establish governance practise. | |
| 19 | N/A | Will DHA provide any feedback on recently submitted responses to the related RFI? | No | |
| 20 | N/A | How does this effort relate to other similar RFI opportunities recently released by DHA, i.e. Achieving Unified Data Accessibility and Data-Driven Insights Across DHA? | As it has been clearly articulated in the respective RFIs, this effort focuses on data inventory and data governance in a federated data model. The RFI for reversed industry day is for vendors to showcase solutions for specific use cases. | |
| 21 | B. Objective 2, 3, 10 | Are there any specific COTS products that have been procured and currently in use by DHA? | Please refer to the SOO for relevant information regarding this procurement. This question is vague, and appears N/A to this specific procurement. | |
| 22 | 4(c)1 | Price Volume is listed as Volume 3 and also referenced as Volume 2 in this paragraph. Please confirm all references in the paragraph should be listed as Volume 3. | Revised--see Amendment 0002 | |
| 23 | (2) Offer Content | Is there are a requirement for OCI mitigation plans from current incumbents working in related DHA projects? If so, which contracts would be considered incumbent contracts? | No | |
| 24 | (2) Offer Content | An OCI statement is referenced as not being part of page count however, there is no specific requirement for OCI. Is an OCI statement required and should this be included as part of the cover letter content? | Yes OCI Statement is required language now reflects OCI statement to be included as Cover letter attachment | |
| 25 | N/A | Will DHA consider a deadline extension of at least 10 working days to allow for additional time for customers to submit PPQs? If this is not possible, would DHA consider receiving PPQs past solicitation close? With the end of the Fiscal Year approaching, customers who are working with decreased staff levels are uncertain they'll be able to meet the current due date upon our request for a PPQ evaluation and submission. | No extensions will be granted. | |
| 26 | Volume 2: Factor 2 - Past Performance Questionnaires : | Is there a minimum workshare percentage that must be demonstrated for PPQ reference projects, or does the 20% threshold instead refer to the anticipated scope and workshare for the DHA VAULTIS contract itself? | Revised--see Amendment 0002 | |
| 27 | b. Volume 2: Factor 2 - Past Performance Questionnaires : | A 3 page allocation has been provided for the PPQs as part of Vol. 2, can the requirement be removed as as part of the page count given PPQs are to be submitted directly to DHA? | Revised--see Amendment 0002 | |
| 28 | HT001125RE019_Atch_01_SOO.pdf | The SOO Section I. C. Objective 3: Implement Robust Metadata Management, Including Data Element Definitions [p 12 of 27], subsection 1 requirement is to “Capture, categorize, and manage comprehensive metadata for all inventoried data assets, including detailed data element definitions, covering technical, business, operational, and security metadata. This does not correlate with the evaluation criteria in Factor 1 The SOO Section I. C. Objective 3: Implement Robust Metadata Management, Including Data Element Definitions [p 12 of 27], subsection 1 requirement is to “Capture, categorize, and manage comprehensive metadata for all inventoried data assets, including detailed data element definitions, covering technical, business, operational, and security metadata. This does not correlate with the evaluation criteria in Factor 1 Technical Capability, Objective 3.1, Comprehensive framework defining Metadata Management: The offeror will provide an example of a comprehensive framework defining metadata to include: standards, schemas, and governance processes. | ||
| It is unclear when comparing these which one should take precedence in our Technical Approach and SOW. For clarity in evaluation results, would the Government please normalize the SOO requirements with the evaluation criteria to remove any ambiguities between them? | Vendor discretion as to your techical approach to satisfy all objectives of the SOO. | |||
| 29 | HT001125RE019_Atch_01_SOO.pdf | The SOO Section I. C. Objective 3: Implement Robust Metadata Management, Including Data Element Definitions [p 12 of 27], subsection 10 requirement is to “Develop a process for continuous improvement and retraining of ML models based on user feedback and new data.” This does not correlate directly with the evaluation criteria in Factor 1 Technical Capability, Objective 3.10, Business Process Automation Implementation: “The offeror should provide an example of Automated workflows supporting metadata management processes.” | ||
| It is unclear when comparing these which one should take precedence in our Technical Approach and SOW. For clarity in evaluation results, would the Government please normalize the SOO requirements with the evaluation criteria to remove any ambiguities between them? | Vendor discretion as to your techical approach to satisfy all objectives of the SOO. | |||
| 30 | HT001125RE019_Atch_01_SOO.pdf | The SOO Section I. C. Objective 4; Evaluate Federated Governance and Workforce Readiness [p 13 of 27] has six requirements centered around practical "pilot experiments" with evaluation, demonstrations and testing. This does not correlate with the evaluation criteria in Factor 1 Tecnical Capability, Objective 4, Federated Governance Playbook/Workforce Readiness; "The offeror shall provide and example of a playbook that outlines domain-level responsibilities for data stewardship, access control, metadata management, and data sharing policies, providing clear guidance on how governance will be implemented and sustained in a multi-domain environement." | ||
| It is unclear when comparing these which one should take precedence in our Technical Approach and SOW. For clarity in evaluation results, would the Government please normalize the SOO requirements with the evaluation criteria to remove any ambiguities between them? | Vendor discretion as to your techical approach to satisfy all objectives of the SOO. | |||
| 31 | HT001125RE019_Atch_01_SOO.pdf | The SOO Section 5, Metadata Harvesting and Discovery Services [p13 of 27] has five requirements centered around testing "automated metadata harvezting" enterprise-wide, validating "completeness, accuracy and update frequencies" for the data, evaluating metadata tagging, assessing various characteristic and capabilities of the metadata and contribution to DHA-EDC. This does not correlate with the evaluation criteria in Factor 1 Technical Capability, Objective 5 , Metadata Harvesting and Discovery Services: The offeror shall provide an example of a report that focuses on the extent to which metadata--including technical, business, and operational attributes--is successfully captured, normalized, and made available for discovery and governance. [p 30 of 34] | ||
| It is unclear when comparing these which one should take precedence in our Technical Approach and SOW. For clarity in evaluation results, would the Government please normalize the SOO requirements with the evaluation criteria to remove any ambiguities between them? | Vendor discretion as to your techical approach to satisfy all objectives of the SOO. | |||
| 32 | Solicitation HT001125RE01 | Evaluation Factors for Award [p’s 30-31 of 34] |
ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2
B. Evaluation Criteria, 1. Factor 1: Technical Capability, a. Subfactor 1: Technical Approach has no evaluation criteria identified for Objectives 1, 2, 3.2-3.9, 7, 8 and 9.
| Please confirm that the Government will not evaluate any portion of the Offerors’ proposal for those Objective sections? | Yes evaluation criteria is explicitly stated in the 52.212-2 Addendum | ||
| 33 | HT001125RE019_Atch_01_SOO.pdf; Solicitation HT001125RE01 | In the SOO and Evaluation Criteria the Government has several requirements that strongly imply that example documents, playbooks, and reports be submitted for evaluation as part of their proposal, in the following SOO sections. This is not consistent with the Deliverables section for these Objectives, which have this documentation as output of the work to be contracted as the result of this solicitation. Offerors “will, shall, should provide…” |
3.1 “…example of a comprehensive framework defining metadata to include: standards, schemas, and governance processes.”
3.10 “... example of Automated workflows supporting metadata management processes.”
In the Solicitation evaluation criteria:
4. “…example of a playbook that outlines domain-level responsibilities for data stewardship, access control, metadata management, and data sharing policies,…”
5. “…example of a report that focuses on the extent to which metadata--including technical, business, and operational attributes...associated with...data product…"
10. “…example of a Self Service/End User evaluation which focuses on features that enable users...”
Would the Government please confirm that these products are the output of the work being contracted, and not required to be submitted as part of Offerors’ proposals for evaluation? Should this be the case, please amend the SOO to remove any ambiguity to cause Offerors to submit them with their proposals?
| If these products are to be submitted as part of Offerors’ proposals, please increase the page count for the Technical Approach by at least 50 pages? | The page count for RFP Volume 1 Technical responses is limited to 40 pages, as stated. | |||
| 34 | Objective 1 – Establish and Implement a Comprehensive and Centralized Data Inventory | Can DHA confirm which domains, systems, or programs will be under the integration scope for the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC)? This clarification is needed to properly size the effort, estimate labor categories, and ensure accurate pricing. | DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Via existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schema, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gatheir the infomration and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don't have a comprehensive list of data assets (hince this RFI), MDR and M2 data dictionaries are highly insightful for some of the MHS data, and are available for download at https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents | |
| 35 | Objective 1 – Establish and Implement a Comprehensive and Centralized Data Inventory | How many domains or systems are under consideration for piloting federated stewardship roles? This clarification is needed to properly size the effort, estimate labor categories, and ensure accurate pricing. | DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Via existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schema, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gatheir the infomration and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don't have a comprehensive list of data assets (hince this RFI), MDR and M2 data dictionaries are highly insightful for some of the MHS data, and are available for download at https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents | |
| 36 | Objective 1 – Establish and Implement a Comprehensive and Centralized Data Inventory; Objective 9 – Assess Mesh Integration with AI/ML Testbeds | How many domains or data products are currently live in the data mesh prototype ecosystem? Understanding the current maturity baseline is critical to scoping the AI/ML integration tasks and scaling appropriately. | DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Via existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schema, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gatheir the infomration and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don't have a comprehensive list of data assets (hince this RFI), MDR and M2 data dictionaries are highly insightful for some of the MHS data, and are available for download at https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents | |
| 37 | Instructions, Addendum to 52.212-1, Volume 2- Past Performance | The solicitation limits Volume 2 to 18 pages and requires submission of PPQs directly from the Government COR/POC. Can DHA clarify what content Offerors should include within their own Volume 2 submission (e.g., cover letter, project descriptions, narratives, reference contact info), given that the completed PPQs will be transmitted separately by the Government COR/POC references? This clarification is needed to ensure Offerors submit a compliant Past Performance Volume without exceeding or misusing the page limit. | Revised -- see Amendment 0002 | |
| 38 | Instructions, Addendum to 52.212-1, Volume 2 | For subcontractor past performance, can DHA confirm that the subcontractor must perform at least 20% of the total contract value each year for the reference to be considered valid? | Only prime contractor information will be accepted | |
| 39 | SOO Objective 4 – Governance Readiness / Training Impact Assessment | Can DHA clarify the expected scope and scale of training to be evaluated under the Training Impact Assessment deliverable? For example, how many personnel (and from which domains or organizations) should be assumed, and should Offerors plan for awareness-level training, role-based deep-dive training, or certification-level readiness? This clarification is needed to accurately scope resources and price the effort. | Focus on developing a framework, a federated data governance process, a guidebook, and digital training materials. Facilitating actual training across the enterprise may not be feasible within the first year. | |
| 40 | SOO Objective 10 – Evaluate Self-Service and End User Experience | For UAT, will DHA provide the end users/stakeholders (MTFs, HQ, analytics teams), or should the contractor recruit representative participants? This clarification is needed to accurately scope resources and price the effort. | DHA will provide access to the UAT data mesh prototype. | |
| 41 | SOO, Section II, Proliferation and Maturation of the DHA Enterprise Data Mesh Prototype p.14 | Objective 2 discusses completing an AoA on COTS products in support of DIMS. Is the government open to other proven and existing solutions within the DHA space? | Yes. Vendor can include as part of their AoA. | |
| 42 | General | Given the Q&A timeline and 40-page response requirement, we respectfully request the government to consider a one-week extension to 9/26 to respond to this solicitation. | No extensions will be granted. | |
| 43 | SOO, Objective 2: Conduct a Comprehensive Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for DIMS, p.13-14 | The government requests completion of an AoA for various EDC solutions. Since companies completing the AoA may be affiliated with specific solutions, could this pose a conflict of interest that negatively impacts delivery of an objective AoA? Would the government consider removing the contractor's AoA requirement in lieu of recommending specific solutions via this proposal response. Following, the government could evaluate and determine the most appropriate product or suite of products to meet their requirements. | No. | |
| 44 | SOO, Section II, Proliferation and Maturation of the DHA Enterprise Data Mesh Prototype p.14 | What is the existing data federation/mesh solution / prototype architecture that is referenced? | This is a pilot, and the solutions may not become enterprise capabilities within 12 months. As such, integration or testing for a large number of users is not necessary. The vendor should focus on (1) creating a data inventory, including a data catalog, and (2) establishing governance within a federated data model, regardless of the platform, cloud provider, or technology used for the pilot data mesh. | |
| 45 | SOO, Objective 2: Conduct a Comprehensive Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for DIMS, p.13-14 | With an AOA taking 3-6 months, does the government see the initial implementation of the chosen solution happening within the POP or within 18 months? | Yes. Decision will be made shortly after AOA is completed. | |
| 46 | SOO, Conduct Platform Infrastructure Performance and Scalability Testing, p.16 | How much data does the government expect to federate across the DHA environment? Can the government provide Small, Medium and Large sizes for reference? | The DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Through existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schemas, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gather the necessary information and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don’t have a comprehensive list of data assets or a data catalog (hence this RFI), the MDR and M2 data dictionaries provide highly insightful information for some of the MHS data and are available for download at: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents | |
| 47 | All | How does CDAO see their relationship synergizing with EIDS PMO? How does the government see this relationship within the context of this RFP? | This question is outside of the scope of the RFP. This is not an acquisition question, it is an organizational structure question which is N/A to this procurement. | |
| 48 | SOO, Comprehensive and Searchable Data Dictionary, p.18 | The DHA currently utilizes an open source solution to federate, catalogue and manage data across multiple domains. Could an existing solution be considered for wider adoption in support of this RFP? What additional requirements are present that are not currently covered with current DHA solutions? | The DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Through existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schemas, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gather the necessary information and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don’t have a comprehensive list of data assets or a data catalog (hence this RFI), the MDR and M2 data dictionaries provide highly insightful information for some of the MHS data and are available for download at: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents | |
| 49 | SOO, Data Product Lifecycle Playbook (Objective 6), p. 33 | What are examples of policies that should be linked to the data assets/products? | Vendor will help DHA establish draft data governance policies for a federated data ecosystem. DHA will follow and be aligned to the DoD CDAO recommendations. See DoD CDAO data strategy and goals for more information. | |
| 50 | SOO, Objective 2: Conduct a Comprehensive Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for DIMS, p.13-14 | Are there components of EDC that already exist within DHA that partially satisfy the requirements that would fall under the AoA? Would the AoA only be focused on requirements currently not met or does the government intend to re-evaluate all EDC-related requirements including those that are currently being met by existing solutions? | The DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Through existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schemas, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gather the necessary information and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don’t have a comprehensive list of data assets (hence this RFI), the MDR and M2 data dictionaries provide highly insightful information for some of the MHS data and are available for download at: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents | |
| 51 | SOO, Objective 6: Test and Refine Data Product Lifecycle and Governance Processes, p. 16 | Will data products be provided as REST APIs or is the government looking to integrate the EDC with existing REST APIs at DHA? | The DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Through existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schemas, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gather the necessary information and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don’t have a comprehensive list of data assets (hence this RFI), the MDR and M2 data dictionaries provide highly insightful information for some of the MHS data and are available for download at: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents Initially will be manual, while overtime via the data mesh connections to APIs will be given. | |
| 52 | SOO, Deliverables, Objective 2, Section 8, Analytics and Reporting Capabilities, p22 | What are the governance policies? | Vendor will help DHA establish draft data governance policies for a federated data ecosystem. | |
| 53 | SOO, Objective 1, p. 12 | The DHA has many different data sources within its ecosystem. Approximately how many data sources are needing to be in the data catalog? | DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Via existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schema, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gatheir the infomration and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don't have a comprehensive list of data assets (hince this RFI), MDR and M2 data dictionaries are highly insightful for some of the MHS data, and are available for download at https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents | |
| 54 | Attachment 3, Pricing Sheet | Attachment 3, Pricing Sheet does not currently align with the CLIN structure provided in the RFP Supplies or Services & Process or Costs. For example, the current CLIN 0003 should be CLIN 0002, and so forth. Also, CLIN 0004 is duplicated but with different Objectives. Will the Government please provide a revised Attachment 3? | Attached herein --see Section J in Amendment 2 | |
| 55 | Pricing Sheet | Please confirm that Travel/ODCs are not anticipated as a part of this award. | Travel and ODCs are not anticipated | |
| 56 | RFP |
Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters
ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1
(4) Proposal Preparation Instructions
(b) VOLUME 2 The current instructions for Volume 2: Past Performance Questionnaires appear to be contradictory. For example, Volume 2 is limited to 18 pages, while also specifying that the template format "is three (3) pages allowing for no more than one (1) page of additional comments per reference". This statement suggests that each PPQ may not exceed 4 pages, for a total of 12 pages for the PPQs (with a limit of 3 references).
| Does this mean that 6 additional pages can be used to narratively describe the 3 Past Performance references? | Revised--see Amendment 0002 | |
| 57 | RFP |
Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters
ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1
(4) Proposal Preparation Instructions
| (b) VOLUME 2 | The current instructions for Volume 2: Past Performance Questionnaires indicate that no information other than completed PPQs is required for this Volume. Is it the Government's intent that Offerors themselves do not submit a Volume 2 document, as the PPQs will be submitted to the DHA Government by our POCs? | "Volume 2" is being used solely as a label for the section or documents within the PPQ submission. It's just a naming convention for clarity and organization within the overall submission | ||
| 58 | General | The solicitation documents do not provide an estimation of a level of effort and/or skill mix. We request the government to provide either historical data of contract personnel required or a notional estimate based on the IGCE to ensure quoters are providing realistic cost proposals and avoid the risk of underbidding which can lead to issues in delivery quality. | This is a performance based effort. Offerors should propose their best technical approach to successfully satisfy all of the objectives stated in the SOO. | |
| 59 | ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 Volume 2: Factor 2 - 4(b)(1) - References | The solicitation states the Offeror shall submit no more than three (3) Past Performance references, or PPQs. Can the Government please clarify if three (3) PPQs or three (3) Past Performances References have to be submitted or can it be a combination of both? For example, can we submit two (2) PPQs and one (1) Past Performance reference? | Revised--see Amendment 0002 | |
| 60 | ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 Volume 3: Factor 2 - 4(c)(1) - Price | The solicitation states the price proposal shall identify the location where Staff and Key Personnel will be performing their duties and indicate which positions are telework or remote positions. No where in the solicitation or pricing spreadsheet does it make mention of staff or key personnel. Does the offeror need to propose the staff and key personnel required in the SOW response? | Revised--see Amendment 0002 | |
| 61 | SOO §5.1, Objective 2 (p. 12); Deliverables §5.3 (pp. 17–19) | Can the Government clarify whether Objective 2 is limited to conducting the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), or does it also require the full acquisition, implementation, and sustainment of the recommended Enterprise Data Catalog solution? | To perform the AoA, aquicition, testing, evaluation, etc… of the capabilities will be needed. Once the AoA complete, the government will make the decision on the way forward for an actual enteprise system. | |
| 62 | SOO §5.1, Objective 2 (p. 12); Deliverables §5.3 (pp. 17–19) | If Objective 2 does include catalog implementation, is the Government expecting a prototype, a minimum viable product, or an enterprise-wide production deployment within the period of performance? | Vendors are encouraged to focus on prototype and MVP. Once the AoA complete, the government will make the decision on the way forward for an actual enteprise system. | |
| 63 | SOO §5.1, Objective 3 (pp. 12–13); Deliverables §5.3 (pp. 19–21) | The Objective calls for “robust metadata management,” while deliverables outline a full metadata framework, automation, ML-driven dictionaries, governance processes, and a strategic roadmap. Should offerors scope this as an enterprise-wide metadata program or as an incremental capability aligned to catalog development? | As an incremental capability | |
| 64 | SOO §5.1, Objective 4 (p. 13); Deliverables §5.3 (pp. 21–23) | Are the deliverables under Objective 4 (Governance Pilot Report, Federated Governance Playbook, Decision Logs, Training Impact Assessment) intended as RDT&E pilot outputs only, or should industry assume they will become baseline operational governance artifacts? | This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated model regardless what platform or cloud provider or technology used for pilot data mesh. Access to pilot DHA data mesh in UAT will be provided together with existing basic testing components. The goal is use findings and work from inital work to drive aquicition strategy. | |
| 65 | SOO §5.1, Objective 5 (p. 13); Deliverables §5.3 (p. 24) | Does “test automated metadata harvesting” (Objective 5) require only limited pilot testing, or should offerors plan to deliver a full Metadata Harvesting & Catalog Accuracy Report with UAT, stakeholder feedback, and prioritized recommendations? | The DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Through existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schemas, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gather the necessary information and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don’t have a comprehensive list of data assets nor a enterprise data catalog (hence this RFI), the MDR and M2 data dictionaries provide highly insightful information for some of the MHS data and are available for download at: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents | |
| 66 | SOO §5.1, Objective 6 (pp. 13–14); Deliverables §5.3 (pp. 23–25) | Objective 6 calls for “test and refine,” but deliverables include enforceable data contracts, violation logs, and a formal lifecycle playbook. Should these be treated as sandbox proofs-of-concept or as enterprise-ready governance mechanisms? | This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated model regardless what platform or cloud provider or technology used for pilot data mesh. Access to pilot DHA data mesh in UAT will be provided together with existing basic testing components. At that point, during T&E and while establishing governance framework, gaps can be identified. | |
| 67 | SOO §5.1, Objective 8 (p. 14); Deliverables §5.3 (p. 26) | Should the “Reusable Component Library” (Objective 8) be scoped as pilot-ready components supporting experimentation, or as a fully documented enterprise library designed for production reuse across the DHA? | This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated model regardless what platform or cloud provider or technology used for pilot data mesh. Access to pilot DHA data mesh in UAT will be provided together with existing basic testing components. At that point, during T&E and while establishing governance framework, gaps can be identified. | |
| 68 | SOO §5.1, Objective 10 (p. 14); Deliverables §5.3 (pp. 25–26) | For Objective 10, should industry scope the usability evaluation as a formal structured study (with broad surveys, interviews, UAT, and reports), or as a lighter evaluation tied to pilot testing? | Vendor can propose different phases that can be followed for usability evaluation. | |
| 69 | SOO §5.2 Expected Outcome (p. 15); Deliverables §5.3 (pp. 17–27) | For objectives where deliverables are more expansive than the objective text (e.g., Objectives 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10), what criteria will the Government use to determine successful completion within the defined period of performance? | Contractor will be expected to deliver products required by the SOO. COR will accept products based on the requirements outlined in the SOO | |
| 70 | SOO §5.1, II. Proliferation and Maturation of the DHA Enterprise Data Mesh Prototype (pp. 12–14) | Can the Government clarify which aspects of the current “prototype data mesh architecture” are available for contractor use and extension? | This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated model regardless what platform or cloud provider or technology used for pilot data mesh. Access to pilot DHA data mesh in UAT will be provided together with existing basic testing components. At that point, during T&E and while establishing governance framework, gaps can be identified. | |
| 71 | SOO §5.1, Objective 4 (p. 13) | Has the prototype phase established a level of domain-oriented ownership of data, with assigned stewards and governance roles, or is this still to be defined under this contract? | The DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Through existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schemas, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gather the necessary information and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don’t have a comprehensive list of data assets nor a enterprise data catalog (hence this RFI), the MDR and M2 data dictionaries provide highly insightful information for some of the MHS data and are available for download at: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents | |
| 72 | SOO §5.1, Objective 6 (pp. 13–14) | To what extent does the prototype currently support data products with defined lifecycles, SLAs/SLOs, and consumer/producer contracts? | This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated model regardless what platform or cloud provider or technology used for pilot data mesh. Access to pilot DHA data mesh in UAT will be provided together with existing basic testing components. At that point, during T&E and while establishing governance framework, gaps can be identified. | |
| 73 | SOO §5.1, Objective 10 (p. 14) | Does the existing prototype provide any level of self-serve capabilities (catalog search, metadata discovery, API access, federated dashboards), or is this capability expected to be developed under this effort? | This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated model regardless what platform or cloud provider or technology used for pilot data mesh. Access to pilot DHA data mesh in UAT will be provided together with existing basic testing components. At that point, during T&E and while establishing governance framework, gaps can be identified. | |
| 74 | SOO §5.1, Objective 10 (p. 14); Deliverables §5.3, Self-Service Portal Usability Evaluation (pp. 25–26) | If yes to the "catalog search" portion of Question # 13, can the Government identify the specific tool(s) or platform(s) leveraged in the prototype data mesh to accomplish data cataloguing and self-service discovery? | This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated model regardless what platform or cloud provider or technology used for pilot data mesh. Access to pilot DHA data mesh in UAT will be provided together with existing basic testing components. At that point, during T&E and while establishing governance framework, gaps can be identified. | |
| 75 | SOO §5.1, Objective 2 (p. 12); Deliverables §5.3 (pp. 17–19) | If yes to the "catalog search" portion of Question # 13, how does the Government envision integration between the existing prototype cataloguing tool and the DHA Enterprise Data Catalog deliverables defined under Objective 2? | The DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Through existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schemas, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gather the necessary information and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don’t have a comprehensive list of data assets nor a enterprise data catalog (hence this RFI), the MDR and M2 data dictionaries provide highly insightful information for some of the MHS data and are available for download at: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents How to integrate technical metadata tools with DHA EDA, that's part of the assessment that will be completed by vendor and alternatives provided. | |
| 76 | SOO §5.1, Objective 4 (pp. 13; Deliverables pp. 21–23) | Has the prototype tested federated governance structures (roles, escalation paths, policy enforcement), or is the intent for this contract to pilot these for the first time? | This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated model regardless what platform or cloud provider or technology used for pilot data mesh. Access to pilot DHA data mesh in UAT will be provided together with existing basic testing components. At that point, during T&E and while establishing governance framework, gaps can be identified. | |
| 77 | SOO §5.1, II. Proliferation and Maturation (pp. 12–14) | Will the Government provide documentation or results of prior prototype test activities so industry can assess maturity and identify gaps relative to the four Data Mesh principles? | This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated model regardless what platform or cloud provider or technology used for pilot data mesh. Access to pilot DHA data mesh in UAT will be provided together with existing basic testing components. At that point, during T&E and while establishing governance framework, gaps can be identified. | |
| 78 | SOO §5.1, II. Proliferation and Maturation of the DHA Enterprise Data Mesh Prototype (pp. 12–14); Deliverables §5.3 (pp. 21–27) | Can the Government clarify whether the outputs of the prototype data mesh (e.g., components, workflows, catalog integrations) are expected to be leveraged and matured under this effort, or treated as non-production “throwaway” artifacts? If they are to be leveraged, should they be evaluated as part of the Analysis of Alternatives (Objective 2) to determine their suitability for enterprise adoption? | This is a pilot and solutions might not be enterprise capabilities within 12 months, so integration or testing for large number of users not needed. Vendor should focus on (1) Data Inventory to include data catalog and (2) Governance in a data federated model regardless what platform or cloud provider or technology used for pilot data mesh. Access to pilot DHA data mesh in UAT will be provided together with existing basic testing components. At that point, during T&E and while establishing governance framework, gaps can be identified. | |
| 79 | Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters. # 3) | Requirement #3 states that "All proposals shall be submitted electronically, via email to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer no later than Friday, 19SEPTEMBER 2025 at 10:00 am Eastern Time." The last 3rd and 4th sentences state " Hard copies of proposals will not be accepted . E-mailed proposals will not be accepted." Can the Government please clarify? | Revised--see Amendment 0002 | |
| 80 | 4) Past Performance Information from Other Sources | Will Past Performance Information from Other Sources be evaluated equally to that of a PPQ? | Yes as long as it meets the recent and relevant requirements | |
| 81 | 5.1.I.A (Objective 1) | For the DHA-EDC and data inventory, please provide baseline counts of source systems, databases, data lakes, data applications, data products, domains, and integration endpoints in scope for the base year and each option year. | DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Through existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schemas, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gather the necessary information and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don’t have a comprehensive list of data assets (hence this RFI), the MDR and M2 data dictionaries provide highly insightful information for some of the MHS data and are available for download at: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents | |
| 82 | Will DHA provide APIs/connections to sources systems or will discovery be manual? If both, what percentage of discovery is expected to be manual? | The DHA has over 50 data assets that generate and/or store data. Through existing DHA data governance boards, access to metadata, table schemas, technical stewards, and other information will be requested so the vendor can gather the necessary information and include it in the Enterprise Data Catalog (EDC). While we don’t have a comprehensive list of data assets (hence this RFI), the MDR and M2 data dictionaries provide highly insightful information for some of the MHS data and are available for download at: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Support-Areas/MDR-M2-ICD-Functional-References-and-Specification-Documents Initially access will be manual by working with data stewards and system owners. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .