Atch-06-HT001126RE011-QA with Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HT001126RE011
- Issued by
-
Defense Health Agency
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for a Defense Health Agency (DHA) data governance contract solicitation. The opportunity seeks a contractor to develop a comprehensive baseline data inventory, establish an interim centralized metadata repository, conduct an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for an enterprise data catalog, implement automated metadata harvesting tools, and evaluate self-service data access portals. The solicitation (HT001126RE011) is a Firm-Fixed-Price contract with a 12-month performance period from 30 January 2026 to 29 January 2027, targeting up to 80 DHA data systems.
Key technical objectives include creating a baseline data inventory, standing up an interim secure repository, conducting an AoA for a DHA Enterprise Data Catalog (DHA-EDC), automating documentation and metadata creation, facilitating metadata exchange with external catalogs, developing self-service capabilities, piloting federated governance, and creating a data product lifecycle playbook. The contract requires resources supporting Objective 1 to be within commuting distance of DHA Headquarters in Falls Church, VA. Proposals are due 9 January 2026, with Past Performance Questionnaires extended to 14 January 2026. The effort is led by the DHA Chief Data and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO) and will leverage existing government-approved platforms and AI tools.
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 | Atch-04+Past+Performance+Questionnaire | Page 2 - Evaluation KEY: Please use the following abbreviations to assign an applicable rating for questions 1 thru 6 below. |
| Are these abbreviations applicable to questions 1 thru 9? | Yes | |||
| 2 | Atch-04+Past+Performance+Questionnaire | Will an editable template or fillable PDF be provided? | Can be converted from Adobe to Word document and is editable on Government platforms; however an editable MS Word version is provided under this amendment | |
| 3 | Atch-02+52.212-1+Addendum | Section 4, b, 4. |
The Addendum specifies that the below data points should be included on the PPQ, however the PPQ template does not include fields for each data point listed. Will the PPQ template be updated to reflect the data points required?
• Project title
• Description of the project
• Cage Code under which work was completed
• Name of Prime that performed work, if applicable
• Government Agency or Organization name that contracted for the performance
• COR’s name, address, and phone number (Person responsible for acceptance and verifying compliance)
• Contracting Officer’s name, address, and phone number
• Contract Number and, if applicable, Task Order Number
i. Current status, e.g. completed and/or if in progress, work start and estimated completion dates
ii. Dollar value and type of contract
iii. SOO paragraphs that the reference applies to
| iv. A narrative of why you deem the reference relevant to this effort | Include the information in appropriate marked field under the Reference Information Table and in the Description of Effort field at the bottom of front page | |||
| 4 | Sec 5.2 Objective 1: Perform a Comprehensive Baseline Data Inventory | Have the owners of the list of data systems been notified of the ask to collaborate and share information on the DHA Data Governance initiative? If yes, by what method? And has a preliminary assessment been conducted with the list of stakeholders? If yes, can we get a copy of the assessment report? | Yes, IT custodians have been notified about the DHA Data Governance initiative through various channels, including leadership engagement, formal policies, and governance boards. A preliminary assessment has been conducted, and an example of this work—the MDR data dictionary—is available on the DHA website. | |
| 5 | Sec 5.2 Objective 1: Perform a Comprehensive Baseline Data Inventory | How many of the 80 systems and data assets does the government expect to be inventoried within the period of performance for the vendor to have successful performance? How does the government intend to mitigate inventory availability outside of the vendor's control (such as minimal system owner engagement or data sharing hurdles and delays for non-DHA owned systems)? | The specific list of 80 systems will be determined collaboratively during the work effort. Once the list is finalized, if certain of those systems cannot be inventoried due to factors outside vendor control, the systems will be documented as out-of-scope. Table #1 provides respondents information about the types of systems we may include to facilitate an informed understanding of scope. | |
| 6 | Sec 5.2 Objective 1 Table 1 & Sec 5.3 Deliverable Table Objective 1 | Do the 80 DHA data systems required in the inventory, as stated in the Sec 5.3 deliverables table, include the data assets defined in Sec 5.2 Table 1 (specifically the several non-DHA owned systems that serve as DoW systems of record)? | The specific list of 80 systems will be determined collaboratively during the work effort. Once the list is finalized, if certain of those systems cannot be inventoried due to factors outside vendor control, the systems will be documented as out-of-scope. Table #1 provides respondents information about the types of systems we may include to facilitate an informed understanding of scope. | |
| 7 | Sec 5.2 Objective 2: Establish an Interim Centralized Repository for Information | "The contractor shall • Stand up an interim secure, accessible repository to host the baseline data inventory within a DHA-approved location." Is there a requirement for the repository to be accessible by external federal partners? Is there a requirement for a non-federal entity to access the repository? | For the interim solution, there is no requirement it be accessible by external federal partners. The intent is to provide an environment where metadata can be inventoried between contract start, and the DHA EDC being established. | |
| 8 | Sec 5.2 Objective 2: Establish an Interim Centralized Repository for Information | For the Interim Centralized Repository, "other authorized capabilities" is mentioned with regard to the repository. Is this intended to reflect other potential platforms? If not, what other capabilities are being requested for the interim repository? | This phrase is intended to reflect other application stacks, like SharePoint or PowerApps, that would consume information from the interim centralized repository. Application stacks are evolving rapidly and we require flexibility to be able to use applications that may not be available at the writing of the SOO | |
| 9 | Sec 5.2 Objective 3: Conduct AoA for DHA-EDC | Does the DHA anticipate a catalog solution capable of doing all listed features or can features be built external to the catalog? If the latter is allowed, does a platform exist in which to develop features? | The preference will be that features are integrated to the catalog solution, however API integrations and federated capabilities are acceptable, as long as such implementations reside on systems within government control. | |
| 10 | Sec 5.2 Objective 3: Conduct AoA for DHA-EDC | Is there an intended cloud platform in which to deploy the catalog? If not, how does the DHA intend to host the catalog solution? | DHA has a number of available cloud solutions including Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure. As the vendor conducts metadata inventory, it may be that one cloud platform will be found advantageous for hosting the catalog due to proximity to data sources. Other than residing in an existing DHA-available cloud platform, there is no current requirement to target a specific cloud platform. | |
| 11 | Sec 5.2 Objective 3: Conduct AoA for DHA-EDC | To what extent are security and access control frameworks intended to be incorporated into the catalog? Is the catalog intended to adjudicate access or provide information of required roles and/or instructions on how to get access? | Vendors should include their assumptions on security and access control framework in their AoA and provide the risk and benefits for the Government to consider. | |
| 12 | Sec 5.2 Objective 4: Automate Documentation and Metadata Creation | The evaluation criteria for this objective mentions sharing data externally. Is the intention that sharing happen as a "push," i.e. DHA would own the process that loads data into an external catalog, such as the Advana Federated Data Catalog? If so, does DHA have a platform in place to host such services? | Interpreting this question as pushing metadata, yes the EDC should push metadata to configured targets (including Advana) who would receive that metadata, but also the EDC should provide a query mechanism (e.g. a pull) allowing discovery of data assets using metadata search, on an ad hoc/demand basis. Essentially, Government envisions the EDC will act as a hub, in a federated hub and spoke arrangement with DHA source systems providing metadata to EDC, and also act as a spoke in metadata federations with ADVANA and similar systems external to DHA. DHA has a number of cloud services available including Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure. | |
| 13 | Sec 5.2 Objective 6: Facilitate Metadata Exchange with Other Federated Data Catalogs | For the Metadata Exchange, will there be a requirement for external Federated Data Catalogs to access the internal DHA interim repository? | Government does not require external federated catalogs to access the interim repository, however Government acknowledges there may be requirements to export from the interim repository for Advana or similar. Such exports should be possible from the interim repository but are not a requirement of this SOO. | |
| 14 | All | Which DHA office/individual will lead the establishment of the data governance and management framework? | The DHA CDAO will lead the establishment of data governance and management framework. | |
| 15 | Factor 2 PPQ | Given the holiday timeframe and limited availability of CO's and Primes for subcontractors to provide a completed PPQ by solicitation close, would the Government be willing to extend receipt of completed PPQs a week after proposal submission? | Yes if the PPQ is applicable to the current SOO --extension to 14 January 2026 is accomplished in this amendment | |
| 16 | Factor 2 PPQ | Would the Government consider accepting previously submitted PPQs provided with the previous RFP response in September or are new Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) required for this solicitation? | Yes see revised 52.212-1 under this amendment | |
| 17 | Factor 2 PPQ | Would the Government please provide and editable copy of the PPQ for completion? | See #2 response | |
| 18 | Obj 3 / Pg 3 | Objective 3 requires an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the DHA-EDC. Does the Government desire an AoA that prioritizes open-standard COTS/FOSS solutions to avoid vendor lock-in, or is there a requirement to utilize existing proprietary data fabric tools currently in the environment? | Avoiding vendor lock-in is a high importance consideration. The AoA should include evaluations of use or reuse of existing data tools including data fabric tools, as it lays out the COAs related to considered alternatives for the EDC. | |
| 19 | Obj 4 / Pg 3 | Regarding automated documentation: Does the current environment support the deployment of containerized (e.g., Docker) or script-based (e.g., Python) metadata harvesting agents, or are there security constraints that limit "active" scanning of the 80 systems? | DHA is committed to efficient and effective metadata harvesting. While it is likely some systems are not available for active scanning currently, including due to security constraints, such discoveries will be documented for DHA remediation. The vendor is not expected to implement solutions for security constraints that prevent automated harvesting, only to ensure that when available, it is used efficiently and effectively. | |
| 20 | Obj 5 / Pg 4 | Objective 5 mentions "Metadata Exchange" with Advana. To ensure DHA maintains authoritative control over its data assets while supporting the CDAO's vision, does the Government view Advana as a "Federated Consumer" of DHA data products, and will an Interface Control Document (ICD) be provided to define this publication standard? | The requirement for metadata exchange with Advana originates from the DOD Chief Data and Artificial Intelligence Office, external to DHA. That DOD requirement includes a federated metadata framework such that DHA maintains authoritative control of its assets, but provides metadata to Advana for data discovery. The DOD CDAO has published minimum metadata requirements for metadata syndication. an informing document can be found here: https://www.ai.mil/Portals/137/Documents/Resources%20Page/DoD%20Metadata%20Guidance.pdf | |
| 21 | Obj 7 / Pg 5 | The SOO mentions evaluating "Self-Service Capabilities." Does the Government envision this as strictly a "Data Discovery" search portal, or should it also function as a "Governance Proving Ground" handling access request workflows (Draft > Validate > Approve) and stewardship assignments? | Government envisions the EDC including stewardship and governance information as components of the collected metadata. "Security and access control frameworks" are one of the features enumerated in Objective 3, so a feature for handling access request workflows would likely be included in the AoA if available. | |
| 22 | OCI / General | Will the performance of the Analysis of Alternatives (Objective 3) create an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) that precludes the awardee from participating in future solicitations for the implementation, integration, or software licensing of the selected solution? | No, the Contractor will not be precluded from future solicitations. While the Government receives recommendations from the AOA, the final decision will be made based on the AOA, existing policies, and other relevant factors. The vendor will not have access to any contract-sensitive data that would create a conflict of interest or preclude them from participating in future opportunities. | |
| 23 | Place of Perf. | Given the specialized nature of the Data Governance and AI/ML talent required for Objectives 4 and 6, does the Government permit a hybrid or fully remote posture for non-key personnel to ensure access to the highest quality talent pool at the most competitive FFP rates? | Per 4.6 "Contractor shall perform services related to the PWS at their own facilities. Resources supporting Objective 1 are required to be within commuting distance to DHHQ (Falls Church, VA) for frequent on-site meetings and collaboration. It is on the vendor on how much of their staff is needed to perform this task to be successful. The Government does not have a set number of staff required. | |
| 24 | Pg 2 (Electronic Submittal) | The solicitation requires submission via email but does not specify a file size limit. What is the maximum allowable file size (MB) for incoming emails to the DHA mail servers? Can proposals be split into multiple emails if they exceed this limit? | Government recommends splitting email messages with attachments exceeding 25MB. Please attempt to compress files or zip them to prevent undeliverable messages | |
| 25 | Vol 1 Instructions | Volume 1 instructions focus on the Technical Approach and SOW. Can the Government confirm that specific Key Personnel resumes or Letters of Commitment are NOT required for submission, and that staffing qualifications should be addressed generally in the Technical Approach? | Key personnel is not required for submission but rather for Government to have a point of contact at the company if one is not clearly listed on the cover letter | |
| 26 | Past Performance | The solicitation permits Past Performance references from commercial customers. Recognizing that commercial entities often have internal policies prohibiting the completion of federal forms (PPQs), will the Government accept a signed Letter of Recommendation or internal Quality of Service Performance Report on client letterhead in lieu of the specific Attachment 4 format, provided it addresses the same scope and performance elements? | All PPQ information must be submitted on the form provided. If you cannot provide a PPQ --Government will pull recent CPARS | |
| 27 | N/A | Attachment-02 52.212-1 Addendum states that PPQ References must submit each PPQ via email, directly to the Government POC(s) listed in the PPQ. Confirming if Volume 2 submitted by the offer must include the Reference-populated/signed forms? Given obvious sensitivities with References sharing their evaluations and comments with the offeror/bidder, recommend the government only require page 1 of the PPQ forms in Volume 2. | The PPQ volume (Volume 2) submitted by Offeror to Government can be a listing of references emailed. The Government will compile all the PPQs received by company. Please add identifying information to the PPQ (i.e., company name and contract number) to assist the Government in placing the PPQ in the correct folder. | |
| 28 | Page 3 - Section 1.4 | Will the Contractor be expected to procure licenses and host any COTS product for the EDC platform? Or will the government purchase licenses and host the product in their environment? | The government will perform all EDC platform procurement activities | |
| 29 | Attachment 2 | |||
| (4)(b)1) (page 6) | To be respectful of the PPQ work already done by government clients and to avoid possible delays arising during the holiday season, recommend PPQs submitted in September (HT001125RE019) during the previous iteration of this RFP be accepted by the government. | See revised 52.212-1 under this amendment | ||
| 30 | Attachment 2 | |||
| (4)(b)6) (page 8) | Instructions state, "Offerors must also provide a tabbed breakout (in the excel pricing sheet) showing that the subcontractor is performing 50% of the total annual contract value for the year." Are subcontractors allowed to perform less than 50% of the work? | Revised see 52.212-1 Addendum | ||
| 31 | Attachment 2 | |||
| (4)(b)6) (page 8) | Instructions state, "Offerors must also provide a tabbed breakout (in the excel pricing sheet) showing that the subcontractor is performing 50% of the total annual contract value for the year." Does this requirement mean that a Prime contractor can only have one subcontractor maximum? | No multiple are allowed under addendum to 52.212-1 guidance | ||
| 32 | Attachment 2 | |||
| (4)(b)6) (page 8) | The instructions reference FAR 52.219-14 and then state, "If an Offeror submits a subcontractor or teaming partner PPQ, the Government must be able to validate (in the excel pricing sheet) that the subcontractor or teaming partner will perform at least 50% of the total annual contract value. If the Government cannot validate this level of participation, the PPQ will not be evaluated." The referenced FAR clause uses the 50% number as a maximum amount for subcontractor workshare, but the RFP refers to it as a minimum to allow a subcontractor PPQ. Will the government please consider revising this requirement to align with the referenced FAR clause? | See revised 52.212-1 Addendum under this amendment | ||
| 33 | Attachment 2 | |||
| (4)(a)2) (page 5) | Does the Statement of Work need to be in any specific format? What does it need to include and what format is required for delivery? | See 52.212-1 Addendum paragraph (2) titled Offer Content and Format bottom of page 3 | ||
| 34 | Attachment 2 | |||
| (1)(e) | Does the Q&A from HT001125RE019 in September apply to this solicitation? | No. Q&A issued under a prior solicitation do not apply to this acquisition. | ||
| 35 | Attachment 2 | |||
| (4)(b) (pages 6-10) | Can the Government confirm that the entirety of the Volume II Past Performance submission consists only of PPQs emailed directly from our clients (as confirmed in Q&A from HT001125RE019 in September)? | Yes and as previously stated if offeror wishes to submit a listing of PPQs being submitted for Government crosschecking | ||
| 36 | 5.2.I.A | Will the contractor be granted the necessary access to the 80+ DHA data systems in order to perform the inventory or will the execution be dependent on the active participation of the stewards of those systems? | When it is feasible to grant access to any of the 80+ systems sufficient to perform the inventory, that access will be granted. Government expects a number of systems will not be accessible to the vendor directly but rather the stewards of those systems will necessarily provide the metadata through other means. Note that an automated harvest capabilities may be available through mechanisms other than the vendor being granted access to the system. | |
| 37 | 5.2.I.A | The “sample data assets” in table one appear to be information systems rather than enhanced data sets with additional context and meaning – that would be listed in a catalog. Please define data asset as DHA is referring to it in this RFP. Many of the assets listed are external to the DHA’s cloud environment boundary. Is the contractor expected to create the pathway and establish the cross boundary access for those external data sets to be listed in a federated catalog | Government envisions a comprehensive inventory of data assets, including source systems such as those examples listed in Table 1. The contractor is not expected to create cross-boundary access for external systems where such access does not exist. If after planning and finalizing the list of 80 target systems for this SOO, a candidate system is found to be not available for this cataloging purpose through either automated or manual mechanisms, it will be documented as out of scope with this justification, but we expect all 80 selected systems will have been verified as available for this metadata cataloging purpose, before the list is finalized (which will necessarily be after contract award) | |
| 38 | 5.2.I.B | Is this repository for the catalog specific records and metadata, or is this a centralized storage solution for the actual data content? | The DHA EDC will store metadata. This effort does not intend to create new storage of data content. | |
| 39 | 5.2.I.B | As an “interim solution”, is the contractor authorized to include the interim capability as part of the AOA and propose it as the actual DHA-EDC? | Yes. but note the requirement to include 4 COTS solutions in the AoA | |
| 40 | 5.2.I.B | Does the interim solution have to be instantiated in the DHA cloud environment with a full ATO before it can begin to function as a federated catalog for production data assets? | Interim solution can leverage existing MED365 solutions or even Advana that are approved and don't required new ATOs. | |
| 41 | 5.2.II.D-F | Objectives 4, 5, and 6 have a high degree of expectations to fine-tune and modify features of the DHA EDC. Is it anticipated that the DHA EDC will be a government owned solution and will the contractor be granted access to modify the core architecture to perform the functions listed in Objectives 4,5,6? If it is a COTS/ 3rd party capability how will the government reconcile the need to make changes to support 4,5, and 6, with a 3rd parties ownership of the solution? | Its likely that Objective 6 would be a core feature consideration in the AoA of 4 COTS solutions. Objective 5 may not necessarily reside within the EDC proper, though the outcomes of robust metadata management should inform DHA processes for interacting with the EDC to ensure it contains the best available metadata. Objective 4 seems explicitly external to the EDC, where tools act upon the EDC metadata store to produce these desired end-states. | |
| 42 | SOO 5.2.I.A–C | For purposes of system inventory and analysis, how does the Government define a “system” (e.g., application, data store, pipeline, or composite product)? |
| I think this question drives to what will be included the 80+ data systems or governed products to be included in the metadata inventory. Government notes examples of data assets are provided in Table 1, nearly all of which might be considered systems. Government also notes the final list of 80+ data systems/products will be determined collaboratively after contract award, will likely include a subset of what is in Table 1, and will almost certainly include data assets or products not in Table 1. | |||
| 43 | SOO 5.2.I.A–C | Is there an authoritative system inventory or estimated system count Offerors should assume, or is discovery expected as part of contract performance? | Government is targeting to include 80+ data systems or governed products. the final list of 80+ systems to be included in the baseline interim inventory will be developed after contract award, and one consideration for inclusion will be whether each included system is available to provide metadata inventory information. |
| 44 | SOO 5.2.I.D | Should Offerors assume a formal DoD-style Analysis of Alternatives, or a fit-for-purpose comparative analysis tailored to DHA decision-making? | The vendor will collaborate with the government to finalize scoring criteria for evaluating desired features of the DHA-EDC. |
| 45 | SOO 5.2.I.D | Are cost models, risk trade-offs, and implementation roadmaps expected deliverables, or illustrative artifacts? | The referenced SOO paragraph describes automation of documentation and metadata creation. The tools included in the SOO in this section are examples of currently available tools within DHA, which is itself a rapidly evolving/changing collection of tools but may provide insight of how we envision certain automations could be performed. The desired output from Objective 4 are automatically extracted metadata, and generated documentation. However, if cost models, risk tradeoffs and implementation roadmaps are useful supplements to these outputs, Government would receive. |
| 46 | SOO 5.2.I.G | Are there known constraints Offerors should assume when proposing alternatives (e.g., mandatory VAULTIS tooling alignment, hosting restrictions, or limitations on commercial SaaS solutions), or should Offerors explicitly state assumptions? | The SOO references use of Government-approved platforms and environments but does not specify or require any contractor-provided hosting environment or tooling alignment. For puposes of formulating the Analysis of Alternatives Offerors shall not assume or condition performance on hosting architectures, platforms, tooling, or commercial SaaS solutions but can explicitly state assumptions |
| 47 | SOO Table 1 | Has all the DUA and connectivity to the listed data sets already been established and will be available to the contractor on day 1? | The final list of 80+ systems to be included in the baseline interim inventory will be developed after contract award, and one consideration for inclusion will be whether each included system is available to provide metadata inventory information. That said, Government notes most onboarding contract staff require several weeks to complete 2875s and similar system access documents, but generally have access to the DHA networks and core business applications within a few days of award. |
| 48 | SOO Table 1 | Do the data sets noted in the table have ICDs as part of the documentation already or are they expected to be created as part of this contract? | Government expects that all systems that will be included in the final list of 80+ systems for the baseline interim inventory, will either be available for automated metadata harvest or will provide existing data dictionaries and ICDs for inclusion in the baseline inventory. That said, Government notes objectives 4 and 5, from which documents like ICDs or data dictionaries might be created. |
| 49 | SOO 1.4 | Will the government (or other personnel outside this contract) be assuming the data stewardship roles? | The vendor is not expected to assume a stewardship role for any existing data system or governed product. The vendor will likely perform certain stewardship activities related to the interim baseline inventory and its contents, but the data ownership roles of the interim baseline inventory will be government personnel. |
| 50 | SOO Part 5 (Objectives) | Are all the objectives to be considered as part of this contact? | All objectives must be addressed under technical portion of proposal. The Government wants Objectives 1-7 with 8 and 9 as an Option should pricing allow. |
| 51 | SOO 5.2.1 G./H. Objective 7/8 | Will data literacy evaluation be required? | Such an evaluation may be helpful, and may even be necessary to meet other evaluations that are required. |
| 52 | SOO 5.2.1 I. Objective 9 | Does the government expect the data flow to enable alerts for data use (i.e. currency or caveats to data use)? | Yes, the EDC should include alerting capabilities related to workflows, and when for example data quality problems including availability or latency issues are detected/reported, alerting should be available from the EDC. |
| 53 | §1.4, §5.2.A (Baseline Data Inventory); §5.2.D–I (AI, governance, lifecycle) | The SOO requires cataloging metadata for up to 80 authoritative and secondary-use systems, while also emphasizing AI-enabled metadata generation, governance traceability, and lifecycle testing. Can the Government clarify whether all 80 systems are expected to be fully onboarded to the same depth (technical, business, lineage, governance metadata), or whether DHA anticipates a tiered approach that prioritizes mission-critical or AI-ready systems for deeper treatment? | Government expects there to be inconsistencies in the data management/governance maturity across the 80+ systems that will be included in the final list of the interim baseline inventory. Within this SOO, the intention of use of AI is to provide generative metadata and documentation, and to detect quality problems in the collected metadata. this SOO does not require implementing AI against source data systems or governed products except with respect to metadata management and governance. |
| 54 | §5.2.C (AoA for DHA-EDC); §1.4 (Scope); §5.2.F–I (Federation, lifecycle, AI readiness) | The SOO requires an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for a DHA Enterprise Data Catalog while also describing extensive federation, metadata exchange, AI readiness, and lifecycle enforcement requirements. Does the Government anticipate that the recommended solution must already demonstrate native support for federated governance, lineage enforcement, and AI/ML metadata use cases at scale, or will DHA consider phased maturation of these capabilities post-selection? | The AoA should include these features as components of the evaluation of the 4 COTS solutions. Where a COTS solution seems the preferred alternative but does not meet all these evaluation elements, the AoA would likely include recommendations about phased maturation. |
| 55 | §5.2.H (Federated Governance & Workforce Readiness); §5.2.I (Data Product Lifecycle) | Multiple objectives require piloting federated governance roles, escalation paths, policy enforcement, and stewardship accountability. Can the Government clarify whether DHA expects the contractor to define and operationalize these governance roles and escalation models enterprise-wide, or only within selected pilot domains identified by the Government? | Define governance roles for the enterprise, but operationalize only within the pilot domains identified by government. |
| 56 | §5.2.F–I (Data Product Lifecycle, AI, metadata exchange); §1.2 (VAULTIS principles) | The SOO emphasizes data products, contracts, lifecycle enforcement, and AI training readiness. Does DHA expect offerors to demonstrate automated, machine-enforceable governance (e.g., metadata-driven controls, contract-based access, lineage-based policy enforcement), or will governance validation primarily rely on documentation, process walkthroughs, and tabletop exercises during this effort? | Emphasis should be in develop and document processes and validate through desktop exercises, as the EDC itself wont be available until late in this effort, at the earliest. |
| 57 | Attachment 5 | Can the contractor adjust attachment 5, pricing spreadsheet as needed to accommodate additional labor categories (such as adding additional rows)? | Yes. Labor Category row counts allowed to be extended to other labor categories see note in the bottom of Attachment 5 |
| 58 | Attachment 2, pages 8 and 9 | Does the government anticipate any necessary other direct costs (ODCs) for software and/or licenses to be required? If so, can the government provide a list of all necessary software’s/licenses? | The Government will provide any software/necessary licenses to perform work that is available within the suite of approved DHA software.” |
| 59 | Atch-02+52.212-1+Addendum |
Paragraph 4.b.6 (Page 8) Paragraph 4.b.6 of the Past Performance instructions states, "Offerors must also provide a tabbed breakout (in the excel pricing sheet) showing that the subcontractor is performing 50% of the total annual contract value for the year."
| FAR 52.219-14 applies to small business set-aside contracts and governs the maximum amount of work that may be subcontracted by the prime, not a minimum level of subcontractor participation or performance. The solicitation’s requirement that a subcontractor perform 50% of the total contract value in order for its past performance to be considered appears inconsistent with FAR 52.219-14 and may unnecessarily limit small business primes’ ability to leverage qualified teaming partners. Will the Government please remove the requirement that a subcontractor perform 50% of the work for its past performance to be submitted or evaluated, and instead allow subcontractor past performance to be considered without a minimum percentage-of-work threshold, consistent with FAR Part 19? | See revised 52.212-1 Addendum under this amendment | |||
| 60 | 1 | Will DHA provide direct access to all up-to-80 data systems, or will access vary by system? | The final list of 80+ systems to be included in the baseline interim inventory will be developed after contract award, and one consideration for inclusion will be whether each included system is available to provide metadata inventory information. | |
| 61 | 1 | What is the expected depth of metadata collection per system—technical metadata only, or operational, business, and semantic metadata as well? | All types of metadata are anticipated to be collected | |
| 62 | 1 | Will DHA provide points of contact, SMEs, and data stewards for each system to support interviews and validation? | Yes, once the final list of 80+ systems to be included in the baseline interim inventory is developed after contract award, and one consideration for inclusion will be whether each included system is available to provide metadata inventory information. | |
| 63 | 1 | What is the expected cadence of in-person meetings at Falls Church for Objective 1? | The cadence for in-person meetings at Falls Church will depend on the availability of the data domain owners and IT custodians. Government anticipates meeting approximately twice a month, but the exact frequency may vary depending on the specific system being discussed. | |
| 64 | 1 | Has DHA finalized the list of systems and governed data products, or will the vendor need to identify candidates during the baseline inventory? | The final list of 80+ systems to be included in the baseline interim inventory will be developed after contract award, and one consideration for inclusion will be whether each included system is available to provide metadata inventory information. | |
| 65 | 1 | Are any systems expected to require special access permissions (e.g., HIPAA, PHI, PII, classified, medical readiness data)? | The final list of 80+ systems to be included in the baseline interim inventory will be developed after contract award, and one consideration for inclusion will be whether each included system is available to provide metadata inventory information. That said, many systems that will be included, will contain PHI and PII data, therefore access to those systems will require sufficient clearances. | |
| 66 | 2 | For automated harvesting, will DHA provide direct DB-level access, API access, or sample datasets only? | One consideration for inclusion in the interim baseline inventory will be whether each included system is available to provide metadata inventory information. when feasible the vendor would be granted access to the systems for implementing automated harvesting. There is likely to be some variation to how that metadata information is provided (introspection, API, etc.). | |
| 67 | 2 | Which systems support SQL/Python/R extraction, and which require custom connectors, middleware, or ETL processes? | The final list of 80+ systems to be included in the baseline interim inventory will be developed after contract award, and one consideration for inclusion will be whether each included system is available to provide metadata inventory information. | |
| 68 | 2 | Are there any existing metadata repositories, lineage tools, or logging applications that should be leveraged? | Government uses Talend in the MIP, it has a data catalog that may be useful as one source for metadata and lineage. Certain governed products have ICDs and similar documents that inform data lineage. | |
| 69 | 4 | How will DHA govern the use of AI tools such as AskSage, AWS Bedrock, NIRPGPT, or Copilot for PHI/PII? | DHA will closely follow the DOD governance of use of AI tools. | |
| 70 | 4 | Are there DHA-preapproved prompts, patterns, or security boundaries for AI-assisted document generation? | For foundational guidance on this topic, please refer to the Department of Defense (DoD) Responsible AI (RAI) Framework and Toolkit. Any additional, DHA-specific guidance, including pre-approved prompts, patterns, or security boundaries for AI-assisted document generation, will be provided post-contract award. | |
| 71 | 4 | Does DHA expect custom model tuning or only out-of-the-box capabilities? | Vendors are encouraged to propose solutions, clearly outlining their capabilities, underlying assumptions, and available options | |
| 72 | 2 | What is the current maturity of Advana Federated Data Catalog in relation to DHA’s needs? | Probably high, but Government will know more once AoA is completed. | |
| 73 | 2 | Does DHA have a preferred metadata exchange standard (e.g., DCAT, JSON-LD, OpenMetadata, Collibra import spec)? | Government does not have a preferred metadata exchange standard | |
| 74 | 2 | Will DHA provide API documentation for Advana and other external catalogs? | Yes, when required. | |
| 75 | 3 | Does DHA already have a defined data governance council, or will the contractor help form it? | DHA has a data & AI governance council. | |
| 76 | 3 | Does DHA have existing data domain definitions, or must the vendor help define domains and data ownership? | DHA has a list of 87 data subject areas that may inform data domains. It is likely that as governance matures during this contract effort, data domain definitions will evolve. | |
| 77 | 3 | What is the expected decision authority—what is DHA’s governance vs. the contractor’s governance responsibilities? | Government anticipates the contractor will advise DHA on governance implementations and best practices, but that the roles of governance and stewardship of existing DHA data systems and governed products will not be performed by this contract, with the exception of stewardship roles related to the interim baseline inventory. | |
| 78 | 8 | What baseline skills do current DHA personnel have regarding data stewardship, metadata management, data products, etc.? | DHA has a diverse workforce with deep expertise in data stewardship, metadata management, and data products. This is supported by collaborative efforts from groups like the DHA Data & AI Council, DHA Data QCOps, and other boards, which integrate, communicate, and coordinate with data stewards to align with DHA’s data strategy. | |
| 79 | 8 | Will DHA identify pilot data stewards for the workforce experiment, or must the vendor propose selection criteria? | When stewards of existing DHA data systems or governed products are needed, DHA will identify the stewards. | |
| 80 | 8 | Are there existing training platforms (e.g., MilSuite, DHA LMS) the vendor must integrate with? | None that the vendor MUST integrate with. DHA has Joint Knowledge Online, a SCORM 1.2 and 2004 conformant LMS which could be leveraged. | |
| 81 | 9 | What is the expected review cycle for each deliverable—monthly, quarterly, or ad hoc? | See Section 5.3 -- Monthly reports and quarterly in-person reviews. | |
| 82 | 9 | Will DHA provide a structured acceptance checklist for each of the nine objectives? | No contextual background? see Addendum to 52.212-1 | |
| 83 | 9 | Will DHA provide evaluation criteria or must the contractor propose them? | No contextual background? See Addendum to 52.212-2 | |
| 84 | 6 | Are there COTS catalogs already preferred (e.g., Collibra, Alation, Informatica) or disqualified due to security or hosting constraints? | Government does not have a preferred COTS catalog. Its likely that the AoA activity will generate information to inform which COTS catalog should be preferred. | |
| 85 | Contract Deliverable: Objective 3 | Should the AoA include TCO modeling, licensing analysis, cloud hosting costs, or only functionality comparisons? | Total cost of ownership, hosting, and functional comparisons are all important aspects of the AoA. | |
| 86 | 9 | What accreditation level is expected for the interim repository—IL2, IL4, IL5, or IL6? | From SSO: "The interim repository will utilize DHA-approved platforms, such as DHA SharePoint, PowerApps, and other authorized capabilities, with access provided to the vendor." So no accreditation needed. | |
| 87 | 9 | Are all systems within the scope FedRAMP High or DoD IL5? | DoD IL5 or IL5, not high. | |
| 88 | 9 | Does DHA require vendors to host solutions in DHA networks, or is contractor-hosted IL5/IL6 allowed for interim work? | All solutions must be hosted in government networks | |
| 89 | 9 | Will PHI/PII be encountered during metadata extraction? | It is highly possible that PHI/PII would be discovered in metadata, though undesirable this is an acknowledged risk to be managed. | |
| 90 | 9 | What restrictions exist on using AI tools when PHI/PII may appear in source data? | DoD has issued recent policy allowing use of certain specific AI tools with PHI/PII. This is a rapidly evolving environment, but use of AI tools against PHI/PII is permitted within the approved toolsets. | |
| 91 | 9 and 1 | What logging/auditing is required when accessing protected datasets? | The vendor will perform an inventory, but not necessarily access or analyze actual data. | |
| 92 | 1 | How many contractor staff are expected to be on-site regularly for Objective 1? | Per 4.6 "Contractor shall perform services related to the PWS at their own facilities. Resources supporting Objective 1 are required to be within commuting distance to DHHQ (Falls Church, VA) for frequent on-site meetings and collaboration. It is on the vendor on how much of their staff is needed to perform this task to be successful. The Government does not have a set number of staff required. | |
| 93 | All | What are the expectations around dependencies on partners like Defense Digital Service, Advana, DHMSM, VA interfaces, etc.? | The final list of systems to be included in the baseline interim inventory will be developed after contract award, and one consideration for inclusion will be whether each included system is available to provide metadata inventory information. Government will work with any potential dependencies. | |
| 94 | All | What KPIs define success for: |
the baseline data inventory?
metadata completeness?
governance pilot effectiveness?
| user adoption of the DHA-EDC? | Vendor should propose suggested KPIs for these item for the Government to consider along with criteria. | |||
| 95 | Contract Deliverable 5.3 | Will DHA provide estimated LOE or does the contractor need to propose LOE per objective? | The contractor should develop LOE estimates | |
| 96 | All Objectives | Are any objectives expected to run in parallel, or is a phased sequence required? | Government anticipates objectives to run in parallel where possible | |
| 97 | HT001126RE011- Attachment 2 Addendum to 52.212-1; page 6, VOLUME 2: FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES: 1) References. | Can the Prime Offeror submit the three (3) past performance references as subcontractor work? | Yes | |
| 98 | HT001126RE011- Attachment 2 Addendum to 52.212-1; page 6, VOLUME 2: FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES: 1) References. | Are CPARs required? Or can if past performances can be previous related subcontractor work, may the Prime Offeror submit letters from their respect previous Primes related to the past performances? | Government pulls CPARS if no PPQs are submitted | |
| 99 | Atch‑02 52.212‑2 — Volume 3 | Can the pricing narrative serve as the basis of estimate? | The basis of estimate can go in the pricing narrative but should contain written rationale for formulation of offeror estimate (labor hours) so Government can apply cost realism | |
| 100 | General | Will the government consider an extension for asking questions in order to allow responders to provide a more thorough and comprehensive response? | No extensions except for Volume 2 PPQ submittal (14 January 2026) | |
| 101 | Atch‑03 52.212‑2 — Factor 1 | Period of Performance alignment with deliverables: Please confirm that all base CLIN deliverables are due within the 12-month POP (30 JAN 2026 - 29 JAN 2027) and clarify which deliverables (if any) are incremental/monthly vs. single-final. | see Revision 2 to SOO | |
| 102 | SOO §3.4.1 (PIEE/GFP Module) | Please confirm whether any physical GFP items (e.g., laptops, scanners) will be issued under this contract and provide the anticipated timing and process for Contractor account provisioning to the PIEE/GFP Module, including who authorizes roles and how soon after award access will be granted. | No physical GFP items (e.g., laptops) will be issued under this contract. Vendors are responsible for providing their staff with the necessary equipment. Once a CAC has been issued to the contract support personnel, the government will provide vendors with the capability to connect to DHA MED365 and other systems via the DHA Azure Virtual Desktop. This virtual desktop is an image of a standard DHA laptop and includes all corresponding software applications, such as MED365. While no hardware will be provided, the virtual desktop will ensure access to all required tools and systems. See SOO revision | |
| 103 | SOO §3.4.1 (PIEE/GFP Module) | The SOO states final invoices will not be paid pending GFP reconciliation. Please clarify acceptance criteria and the data elements DHA requires in semi‑annual 100% inventories and reconciliations (e.g., serial #, custody, condition, location), and whether a Government template | Not applicable (see response for Question #102) | |
| 104 | SOO §4.6 (Facilities) | For the requirement that resources supporting Objective 1 be within commuting distance to DHHQ (Falls Church, VA), please specify the expected onsite frequency (e.g., days per week/month), approximate number of personnel, and whether travel costs for out‑of‑area SMEs are allowable. | The cadence for in-person meetings at Falls Church will be based on the availability of the data domain owners and IT custodians to ensure their participation. Government anticipates a frequency of approximately twice month, but that might varies depending on system being discussed. | |
| 105 | SOO §1.4 / Objective 1 | Please provide the authoritative list of up to 80 data systems/data products to include in the baseline data inventory, any priority sequencing, and access pathways (APIs, sandboxes, read‑only DB links) the Government will furnish to enable timely metadata capture. | The final list of 80+ systems to be included in the baseline interim inventory will be developed after contract award, and one consideration for inclusion will be whether each included system is available to provide metadata inventory information. | |
| 106 | SOO §Objective 2 | The SOO references DHA‑approved platforms (e.g., SharePoint, PowerApps) for the interim centralized repository. Please confirm the tenant/environment (e.g., DHA GCC High), account provisioning timelines, data classification allowed (CUI/PHI/PII), and required encryption/IL level for storage and transmission. | DHA MED365 is approved for CUI/PHI/PII and has the encryption needed to complete the project. | |
| 107 | SOO §Objective 3 | For the AoA of at least four COTS solutions for DHA‑EDC, will DHA provide trial licenses/test environments, representative datasets, and the weighting of scoring criteria (functionality, scalability, TCO, integration) to ensure a consistent and defensible trade study? | DHA will not provide trial licenses or test environments. Government expects to work collaboratively with the vendor to develop relevant weighting and scoring criteria. | |
| 108 | Atch‑03 52.212‑2 — Eval Criteria #3 | Please confirm whether the recommended DHA‑EDC emerging from the AoA must include implementation planning and risk mitigation beyond the report (e.g., migration steps, pilot plan), and identify the acceptance standard for the AoA deliverable. | Vendor can propose. We encourage providing an implementation plan with risks and other considerations. | |
| 109 | SOO §Objective 4 | For automated metadata harvesting, please specify permitted methods (e.g., SQL agents, JDBC/ODBC, API crawlers), network boundary constraints, any ATO/ATO‑with‑conditions needed for harvesters, and whether read‑only service accounts will be furnished per system. | Vendors are encouraged to propose solutions while leveraging existing approved capabilities mentioned in the SOO such as AskSage, Bedrock, Advana, etc.… | |
| 110 | SOO §Objective 4 | The SOO names AskSage, AWS Bedrock, NIPRGPT, or Copilot as DHA‑approved AI tools. Please confirm current authorization/usage limitations, data residency/compliance constraints, and whether fine‑tuning or prompt logs may include CUI/PHI/PII. | DoD has issued recent policy allowing use of certain specific AI tools with PHI/PII. This is a rapidly evolving environment, but use of AI tools against PHI/PII is permitted within the approved toolsets. | |
| 111 | SOO §2.1.6 (QASP) | Will DHA provide the Government QASP, or should Offerors propose a QASP aligned to SOO objectives? If Contractor‑proposed, please identify the surveillance methods and performance metrics DHA prefers to see. | The vendor should propose quality assurance surveillance planning activities. | |
| 112 | SOO §Objective 5 | Please confirm the metadata standards/schemas DHA expects (e.g., DCAT‑US, ISO/IEC, DoD CDO guidance), the governance workflow tooling (e.g., SharePoint/Power Automate), and the reporting cadence for DQ indicators and compliance reports. | The vendor should propose and justify what metadata standard and quality should be used. | |
| 113 | SOO §Objective 6 | For metadata exchange with Advana Federated Data Catalog, please provide the integration mechanism (API specs, transport protocols), auth model (keys/certs), synchronization frequency, and the Government POC for coordination. | The specifications of interchange between DHA EDC and Advana federated data catalog may depend on what EDC platform is selected, following AoA. However, Advana is aCollibra platform. Available documentation of Advana interfaces will be made available when required. | |
| 114 | SOO §Objective 7 | For UAT of the self‑service portal, please specify which MTFs/HQ elements will participate, the number and roles of users, test scenarios/data, access provisioning timelines, and acceptance criteria for usability findings. | Selections of specific participants in UAT testing and such will be determined collaboratively after contract award. The vendor should prepare to develop UAT activities in coordination with government personnel, including criteria for acceptability which must depend on the test content. |
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 .