Consolidated Q and A HT0015-24-R-0530.pdf

Consolidated Q and A HT0015-24-R-0530

TOPIC

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Overall Solicitation

Basis of Award

1 1 The Basis of Award states "this solicitation is for a single Task Order award, as a Small Business Set Aside, under the General Services Administration (GSA) Health Information Technology Services Multiple Award Schedule (MAS)". Will the government provide preference to Small Business offerors under this procurement?

The solicitation is being set aside for Small Businesses with no further set aside categories. Other than Small Businesses will be unable to propose as a Prime Offeror.

Package Basis of Award

1 1 For a transformational program of this scale, does DHA prefer offerors with experience implementing enterprise programs such as Implementing Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) solutions, enterprise ICAM solutions, automating Information Assurance, etc. similar in scope and size to this PWS? If so, are there specific qualifications or case studies that DHA would like offerors to highlight to demonstrate relevant expertise and successful outcomes in these environments to ensure vendors expertise and experience?

DHA should consider opening the solicitation to large businesses that have demonstrated experience implementing and operating large-scale transformational solutions—such as ICAM enabling compliance with Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA)—within cabinet-level federal agencies, the Department of Defense (DoD), and large Fortune 500 commercial Life Sciences or healthcare organizations.

Please review the PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS and Basis of Award for required components of proposals as well as how the Government intends to evaluate proposals.

DCWF/Staf fing Matrix

Basis of Award

1 1.1 Is the government contemplating also allowing contractors to propose labor categories from GSA Multiple Award Schedule IT Category SIN 54151S?

Clarification requested due to the nature of the requirements.

The Government intends to solicit using GSA's Health IT Services (SIN), 54151HEAL. Contract holders may submit a modification, using GSA's Fast Lane procedures, to add the SIN or additional LCATs to their existing contract.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

1 1.3 The weighting of Technical > Staffing > Price is helpful, but the document lacks clarity on how trade-offs are quantified.

Clarify how trade-offs will be documented or scored. Consider including a decision matrix or illustrative examples to enhance transparency.

Please see the Basis of Award for how the Government intends to evaluate proposals.

Evaluation Basis of Award

1 1.3 The phrase “significantly more important than Price” is vague.

Define "significantly more important" numerically or provide scoring guidance (e.g., Technical = 60%, Staffing = 25%, Price = 15%) for transparency.

Please see the Basis of Award for how the Government intends to evaluate proposals. No mathematical calculation will be used.

Evaluation Basis of Award

1 3 Given that cost is ranked third in the evaluation criteria, could the government clarify how it intends to evaluate innovation in proposals, particularly in the absence of defined key performance indicators (KPIs) or outcome-based metrics?

Recommend the government provide specific KPIs and what benchmarks or methods will be used to assess and compare the level of innovation offered by different vendors to ensure alignment with the program’s transformation goals.

Please see the Basis of Award for how the Government intends to evaluate proposals.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Package Basis of Award

1 Section 1.3 Allow bidding entities operating within Alaskan-native corporate structure that includes Parent Company/Affiliate/Subsidiary may submit relevant corporate experience of an affiliate/subsidiary and have it attributed as the Prime Offeror's experience and considered in evaluations. As Supported by GAO decision File B-418486; B-418486.2;

B-418486.3 which concluded "An agency properly may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated company to an offeror where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate will affect the performance of the offeror.”

The solicitation is being set aside for Small Businesses with no further set aside categories. Other than Small Businesses will be unable to propose as a Prime Offeror.

Overall Technical Environmen t

Basis of Award

1 Section M – Will technical scalability (e.g., ability to support concurrent TOs across CONUS/OCONUS) and surge response be evaluated?

Recommend including enterprise scalability and surge capacity as a technical scoring criterion.

Please see the PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS for required proposal content as well as Basis of Award for how evaluations will be conducted.

Transition In/Out

Basis of Award

2 1.5.1 The criteria mention understanding “transition timelines,” but no benchmarks are provided.

Provide measurable expectations or a sample transition timeline to guide Offerors in structuring their response consistently.

Government manages these requirements and all documentation is available on DHA knowledge shares.

Transition timelines and constraints are detailed in the PWS.

Evaluation Basis of Award

2 1.7 Factor Can the Government elaborate on how 'balanced pricing' will be evaluated per labor category, total volume, or other metric?

Recommend the Government define how balance will be assessed (e.g., by labor category, period, or total evaluated price), and whether price realism or outliers will be part of the evaluation criteria.

Please see FAR 15.404-1(g) for circumstances when pricing may be found unbalanced and ineligible for award.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 1.6 Staffing criteria heavily rely on confidence language (e.g., “high level of confidence”).

Suggest translating qualitative confidence factors into observable metrics such as fill rates, historical performance, and time-to-fill KPIs.

Thank you for the recommendation.

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 1.6 Staffing criteria heavily rely on confidence language (e.g., “high level of confidence”).

Suggest during oral presentations that key personnel be prepared to provide historical relevance/performance of where key personnel dealt with enterprise scope of responsibilities and articulate how governance, policy, operational, and tactical processes were used to communicate to all facilities that a major incident is occurring; this type of demonstration of scope of responsibility is understood and can be measured with a quantitative scale that clearly separates experience versus understanding of concepts.

Thank you for the recommendation.

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 1.7 Price is evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and completeness—but is “affordability” a binary threshold or spectrum?

Clarify how affordability thresholds are set and whether the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) range will be disclosed during Q&A.

The Government estimate will not be disclosed, however, as described in the Basis of Award at 1.7 may be used to determine the proposed price fair and reasonable.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 1.7 Price is evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and completeness—but is “affordability” a binary threshold or spectrum?

Define what the clients appetite for use of discussion of transformative innovation is; ie, can use of corporate best practices with use of enterprise transformation operations be highlighted as an exceptional scoring area; as teams are formed to cover this enterprise mission, will there be scoring criteria that breaks out how 'teams' are leveraging multi-source areas of responsibility in the delivery of the requirements; ie discussion of how a team will use different processes across all team (companies) to provide a unified delivery of transformative innovation to the enterprise.

Please review the PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS and Basis of Award for required components of proposals as well as how the Government intends to evaluate proposals.

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 1.7 Price unbalancing is cited as a risk, but Offerors may benefit from further definition.

Define what constitutes “unbalanced pricing” (e.g., drastic variance between option years) and whether corrective clarifications will be allowed.

Please see FAR 15.404-1(g) for circumstances when pricing may be found unbalanced and ineligible for award.

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 1.7 How will price realism be evaluated in relation to the Staffing Matrix—particularly when proposed labor reflects lower experience since the proficiency levels are not defined?

For example, the government might receive a staffing matix where one vendor uses 5 years for Intermediate and another only uses 2 years of expereince.

Clarify whether the government will assess the realism of proposed pricing against labor category qualifications and expected FTEs, not just cost totals.

The Government has identified when minimum requirements for staffing must be met. The Government's use of a tradeoff methodology allows for an evaluation of multiple Factors.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 1.7 Offerors may propose lower labor rates by mapping junior staff to categories minimally meeting requirements. Will the government assess staffing quality versus proposed rates?

Recommend explicitly stating whether labor category experience levels (e.g., basic vs. advanced) will factor into determining realism and technical adequacy.

The Government has identified when minimum requirements for staffing must be met. The Government's use of a tradeoff methodology allows for an evaluation of multiple Factors.

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 1.7 Offerors may propose lower labor rates by mapping junior staff to categories minimally meeting requirements. Will the government assess staffing quality versus proposed rates?

Recommend creating two areas of determining realism and technical adequacy; one area as stated in previous recommendation and second area as an area to demonstrate the maturation of enterprise services over life of contract that will articulate how use of innovation, transformation, maturation of other information technology capabilities in the environment will be leveraged to continually drive down the cost of sustainment operations by the industry partner and thus will allow for the team to drive down overall costs to the program and the client.

The Government has identified when minimum requirements for staffing must be met. The Government's use of a tradeoff methodology allows for an evaluation of multiple Factors.

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 1.7 Total Evaluated Price includes transition, base, and all option periods—but how will pricing differences across years be judged?

Recommend providing a threshold or guidance on acceptable price escalation or decline over the contract term to detect unbalanced pricing across periods.

Please see FAR 15.404-1(g) for circumstances when pricing may be found unbalanced and ineligible for award.

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 1.5.1 The requirement for “innovation” is broad—how will innovation be objectively evaluated?

Recommend defining innovation evaluation criteria (e.g., cost savings, automation, modernization impact) to ensure consistent review.

The Government's use of a tradeoff methodology allows for a an evaluation of multiple Factors, including objective and subjective processes.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 1.5.2 Scenarios mention “oral presentation” and “written submission” but lack specific weighting or scoring rubric.

Recommend publishing the oral presentation scoring rubric or weighting scheme, and whether verbal delivery style affects scoring.

The Government's use of a tradeoff methodology allows for a an evaluation of multiple Factors, including objective and subjective processes. No mathematical calculation will be used.

Orals Basis of Award

3 15.2, bullet Instructions State: "Each Offeror will be provided details, including logistical and supporting information, scenario background and specific questions to address (SOL Attachment 5) the Oral Presentation no later than one (1) week prior to the Offeror’s schedule Oral Presentation."

Basis of Award States: "A practice that protects the DHA technical investment and innovates within the DDSB branch constraints, such that the Government has a high level of confidence in the Offeror’s long-term value and success as a contractor."

Will the scenario details provided by the government include the constraints indicated in the Basis of Award or will those be based simply upon information contained within the

PWS?

Clarification requested for mutual understanding between the government and the offerors.

The Scenarios will include details, logistical and supporting information, scenario background, and specific questions to addressed.

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 2.4.1 Technical evaluation criteria references "high level of confidence in Offeror's success" but specific performance metrics are not defined.

Where are the measurable performance standards?

Include reference to Performance Requirements Summary or define specific performance metrics

The Government's use of a tradeoff methodology allows for a an evaluation of multiple Factors, including objective and subjective processes.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

4 2.4.2 Scenarios evaluation mentions "repeatable processes and methodologies" but scenarios are not yet available for review. How can offerors prepare without knowing scenario complexity?

Provide sample scenarios or detailed scenario descriptions

As indicated in the PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS at 1.6, the detailed Scenarios will be provided in advance of the Oral Presentation.

Evaluation Basis of Award

The draft does not indicate whether the Government intends to conduct discussions or make award based solely on initial proposals. This affects proposal strategy.

Request clarification on whether the Government anticipates awarding without discussions.

The Government intends to award without Discussions. Specific language will be included in the final solicitation.

KPIs/Perfor mance

Basis of Award

Is there a performance management framework already defined?

Request any existing PRS or QASP for alignment and risk mitigation in scoring.

Please see PWS Attachment 11 for the PRS. Further, please see the Instruction to Offerors for requisite proposal information as well as the Basis of Award for the Government's evaluation scheme.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

Respondent notes that while the evaluation criteria reference scenario-based assessments during oral presentations, they do not define key parameters such as scenario complexity, technical depth, or time allocation. This lack of clarity may result in inconsistent evaluation experiences across offerors and limit the government’s ability to fairly assess comparative strengths in technical execution and problem-solving under pressure.

As a contractor with demonstrated success delivering complex, scenario-driven technical presentations and operational briefings for agencies such as DHA, SAMHSA, and NIH, Respondent understands that structured, well-defined evaluation scenarios are essential for distinguishing technical competency, innovation, and real-world applicability.

The government provide high-level guidance to ensure consistent and equitable evaluation conditions.

Specifically:

• Outline the general complexity of scenarios (e.g., enterprise system integration with security constraints, incident response within hybrid cloud environments, or multi-phase modernization strategy planning).

• Clarify the expected response duration per scenario and total time allocated for scenario discussion during oral presentations.

• Indicate whether scenarios will assess technical implementation acumen (e.g., toolsets, configurations, troubleshooting) or strategic methodology (e.g., governance, risk mitigation, team coordination).

Providing this structure will enable offerors to tailor their presentations appropriately, promote consistency in evaluation, and allow the government to better assess contractor readiness and capability in a realistic, performance-based context.

Please see the Instructions to the Offerors at 1.6, which details the logistics of the Oral Presentation. The detailed Scenarios will be provided in advance of the Oral Presentation.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

The evaluation criteria for the staffing p

Respondent recommends that the government clarify the following to support consistent and targeted staffing plan development:

• Indicate whether healthcare-specific IT experience will be given preference over general DoD IT experience—especially for positions directly supporting clinical systems, enterprise service management platforms, or patient care continuity.

• Define minimum experience thresholds (e.g., years, certifications, domain-specific expertise) for key personnel positions.

• Clarify whether experience with specific technologies such as Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager (MECM), Microsoft Intune, or the Military Joint Active Directory (mJAD) carries additional evaluation weight.

This guidance will enable offerors to align their staffing approaches with mission priorities and ensure that proposed personnel are optimized for both compliance and operational performance.

Please review the Basis of Award for the relative order of importance of the Government's evaluation Factors.

Orals Basis of Award

1.5.2 Does the Government desire that the

scenarios be addressed during the oral presentation?

Please see the Instructions to the Offerors at 1.6, which details Scenarios subfactor, including how the Scenarios are to be addressed in the Oral Presentation.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

1.5.2 Does the Government have a

definition of "innovation"?

Introducing new ideas, processes, or procedures.

Evaluation Basis of Award

1 to 3 Overall There’s no reference to how CPARS or past performance will be evaluated in selection.

Recommend including past performance as a distinct evaluation factor or subfactor, or clarify if it will be used as a pass/fail or tie-breaker criterion. In the clarification of scoring the ability to demonstrate that teams have participated in the delivery of transformative enterprise modernizations of sustainment work should be scored and recognized/awarded value scores;

value scores should be given superior ratings over teams that only have understanding of the concepts.

Please review the Basis of Award for the relative order of importance of the Government's evaluation Factors.

Past Performance will not be included in the evaluation.

Evaluation Basis of Award

2 of 4 1.4 For the Non-Price Factors, would the Government please clarify in more detail the difference between a "Good" and an "Acceptable" proposal? The two definitions for these ratings differ only slightly and appear to mean the same thing.

Please see updated Basis of Award.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

2 of 4 Basis of Aw JVs bidding on government contracts are typically unpopulated, meaning they have no employees of their own and instead are an empty or near empty entity that performs via subcontracts to the JV owners. Both JV partners must perform a substantial portion of the contract and are jointly responsible for performance. Unpopulated JVs carry significant disadvantages in performance due to the need for program management functions to be split between both JV members as both members will be performing through subcontracts to the JV and are jointly responsible for performance.

Question: How will the agency evaluate the risk the unpopulated JV structure creates as compared to a traditional prime/sub relationship?

All Offerors will be evaluated using the same criteria, as specified in the solicitation.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

2 of 4 Basis of Aw JVs bidding on government contracts are typically unpopulated, meaning they have no employees of their own and instead are an empty or near empty entity that performs via subcontracts to the JV owners. Both JV partners must perform a substantial portion of the contract and are jointly responsible for performance. Unpopulated JVs do not have their own employees and instead involve performance by both joint venture member companies performing under the JV via subcontract agreements. This means that all program functions will be split between the two parties.

Question: How will the government evaluate this complex performance structure and ensure clear lines of responsibility between the two parties?

All Offerors will be evaluated using the same criteria, as specified in the solicitation.

Evaluation Basis of Award

2-3 of 4 1.5.11.5.21The Basis of Award uses subjective language such as “high level of confidence” and “long-term value.”

Can the Government provide examples of what constitutes significant strengths or innovation to improve evaluation consistency?

We recommend providing examples of what constitutes significant strengths or innovation to improve evaluation consistency.

To maximize competition and proposal opportunities, examples will not be provided.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

3 of 4 1.7 Factor DRFP file "Basis of Award", section

1.7 states "The Government will evaluate each proposal price for reasonableness, balance, and completeness. Price will be evaluated using various price analysis techniques and procedures in accordance with but not limited to, price comparison and comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). Pricing must be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award.

Question: Would the Government please clarify if the evaluation of pricing reasonableness will take into consideration pricing/salary realism once employees have received their additional/new 8140 training?

We recommend the Government require bidders to price salaries considering 8140 training, as this will reduce possible employee turnover once they have received their training.

8140 training raises employee value in the market.

Proposed prices will be evaluated and incorporated into the resulting contract.

Evaluation Basis of Award

3,4 1.7 Factor RFP states "Total Evaluated Price:

The Government will evaluate offers for Award purposes by adding the total price for the Transition Period, Base Period, all Option Periods, and Government-provided ODCs."

Will the Government please consider to have the Transition Period to not included in "Total Evaluated Price" to provide a fair price evaluation for all Offerors?

Please see the Basis of Award at 1.7 for how the Total Evaluated Price will be calculated, which will include any proposed price for Transition.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Package Basis of Award

Page 1 Paragraph How frequently should Offerors check for amendments to the solicitation, and are there specific instances that should prompt a more frequent review?

It is the Offeror's responsibility to monitor ebuy for release of the solicitation as well as any amendments. The Government is unable to predict the quantity and frequency of amendments, however intends to communicate with industry to ensure competition is maximized.

Package Basis of Award

Page 1 Paragraph Can you provide additional guidance on the preferred method for marking and submitting proprietary or confidential subcontractor information separately from the Prime's proposal?

The Government does not anticipate a need for proprietary subcontract information to be provided.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

Page 2 onwSections 1. The instructions state: "The Scenarios Subfactor includes both written and oral components, which will be evaluated together to determine the Subfactor rating. Can the Government clarify whether proposed FTE quantities and labor mix will be evaluated as part of the Technical evaluation under Volume IV, or solely under Price reasonableness." The BASIS OF AWARD describes general expectations for evaluating the Scenario Subfactor but does not clarify how the written and oral portions will be weighted or scored.

Can the Government confirm whether the brief and oral presentation will be evaluated together or separately, and whether a formal rubric or scoring criteria will be used to determine confidence levels and Subfactor ratings?

Clarification requested for mutual understanding between the government and the offerors.

Please see updates to the PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS and Basis of Award. The brief and Oral Presentation will be evaluated together. No mathematical calculation will be used.

Package Basis of Award

Page 5 starting und Can you elaborate on what constitutes an "effective approach" for meeting the requirements, as well as the degree of flexibility needed within the approach?

Non-price Factors will be assigned a rating using the definitions in the Basis of Award at 1.4.

Evaluation Basis of Award

Page 5 under Fact How will the Government evaluate the feasibility of the proposed mix of hours and staffing capability to ensure it meets the requirements?

Non-price Factors will be assigned a rating using the definitions in the Basis of Award at 1.4.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Basis of Award

Page 6 Last Parag What criteria will be used to determine if an Offeror's price is "fair and reasonable," and how will unbalanced Option Period prices affect the eligibility for award?

Please see FAR 1.404-1(b) for various Price Analysis techniques.

Please see FAR 15.404-1(g) for circumstances when pricing may be found unbalanced and ineligible for award.

KPIs/Perfor mance

General 1 4 The 'DDSB Draft Solicitation Posting' references a performance-based contract, but anticipated outcomes are not clearly defined. The main PWS document outlines activities, and, in some cases, deliverables, but lacks specific outcomes desired considering complexities of a program that needs to operate and transform with agility.

Government should consider strengthening this procurement to include clearly defined deliverables, results, and measurable milestones (e.g. Achieve a 40% reduction in manual account provisioning time upon implementation of ICAM solution, % of applications integrated into ICAM solution over defined phases). Considering the innovation and transformation expectation in a constrained environment with continued consolidation as indicated in evaluation criteria, Government should strengthen focus of solicitation to provide right outcomes from not just operating current systems and providing desired innovative transformation.

Please refer to the Performance Requirements Summary at PWS Attachment 11.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation General 1 5 The DDSB Draft Solicitation Posting states "to maximize teaming, responses will be accepted for this notice from other than Small Businesses or GSA contract holders."

Given the considerable scope of this work and the ability of other than Small Businesses to provide deeper capabilities with efficiencies and cost savings, will all responses, regardless of business size, be evaluated equally?

The solicitation is being set aside for Small Businesses. Proposals from other than Small Businesses as a Prime Offeror will not be accepted.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Overall Solicitation

General 1 NAICS Cod The scope of work outlined in the draft PWS aligns more directly with NAICS 518210 due to the following factors:

Integrated Directory and Cloud Services: The requirement includes ongoing operations of MED365 cloud services and a joint on-premises Active Directory environment—functions representative of data hosting, identity management, and enterprise directory services.

Extensive Data Infrastructure and Identity Services: With over 250 global sites, 3,000 servers, and 200,000 users, the operational environment clearly supports large-scale, secure data access, identity, and credentialing systems—core aspects of NAICS 518210.

Support to Enterprise-Scale ICAM Architecture: The PWS references robust support for Identity, Credential, and Access Management (ICAM), as well as hosting and authentication services spanning a complex health IT ecosystem.

Performance-Based FFP Model: The Government’s intent to solicit this requirement as a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract with clearly defined performance outcomes is more

Recommend the Government revise the NAICS code to 518210. The work described involves operating and maintaining enterprise IT infrastructure (e.g., MECM, Intune, Active Directory), implementing ITSM processes (incident, change, configuration, knowledge management), executing cybersecurity compliance (STIGs, IAVAs, RMF), and providing continuous Tier 2/3 support. These tasks fall under 518210, which covers managing and operating clients’ IT systems or data centers. Use of 518210 ensures alignment with the actual scope of services and enables more appropriate labor category mapping and size standard determinations for small business participation.

Thank you for your recommendation.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Package General 4 1.3 The proposal content and organization section, outlining the five required volumes, does not currently include any specific past performance requirements. What, if any, supporting past performance citations will be required in the RFP response, and will the Government provide additional details on required past performance in the finalized solicitation instructions?

Please review the Basis of Award for the relative order of importance of the Government's evaluation Factors.

Past Performance will not be included in the evaluation.

Overall Solicitation

General Does the Government intend to hold a virtual or in-person Pre-solicitation Industry Day event to disseminate updated information resulting from the DDSB IT Services RFI? If an in-person event, which DHA office location?

Allow bidding entities access to unambiguous pre-solicitation information and for the government to receive real-time feedback on potential need for any revisions to final solicitation requirements/documents.

Any Industry Day will be announced in advanced with adequate time to plan.

Overall Solicitation

General Whether the solicitation will be released under SIN 54151X or another GSA schedule?

The Government intends to solicit using GSA's Health IT Services (SIN), 54151HEAL.

Overall Solicitation

General The anticipated release date and submission deadline?

The Government intends to communicate its timelines as soon as practicable.

Overall Solicitation

General Will this be a new contract or task order under an existing IDIQ (e.g., CIO-SP3, STARS III)?

The Government intends to award a Task Order using an existing GSA vehicle.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Overall Solicitation

General The RFI indicates the Governments intention to release the DDSB IT RFP on the GSA MAS Schedule under the Health IT Special Identification Number (54151HEAL) but invites other MAS contract holders to respond.

The scope of work on DDBS-IT may be better aligned with GSA MAS 54151S - Information Technology Professional Services. 54151HEAL focuses on health IT services such as electronic health records, health information exchanges, health analytics, health informatics, and health IT research. 54151S covers professional IT services such as enterprise network services, systems analysis, integration, and design, database/records management, programming, conversion and IT implementation support, which align to the requirements outlined in the DDSB-IT PWS. In addition to a better alignment with the scope of work, DHA should also consider the opportunity for increased competition and innovative solutions available via 54151S which has much larger pool of qualified vendors than 54151HEAL.

We recommend DHA utilize 54151S for this requirement or at the very least, utilize the GSA eBuy ability to combine SINs to meet their requirements.

Thank you for your recommendation.

The Government intends to solicit using GSA's Health IT Services (SIN), 54151HEAL. Contract holders may submit a modification, using GSA's Fast Lane procedures, to add the SIN or additional LCATs to their existing contract.

Overall Solicitation

General Can the Government confirm whether the requirement will be issued under GSA MAS Health IT as a 100% Small Business Set-Aside?

The solicitation is being set aside for Small Businesses.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Overall Solicitation

General Would the Government consider an 8(a) Native Hawaiian Organization (NHO) proposal submitted via Alpha contracting as an alternate path or for future similar efforts?

The solicitation is being set aside for Small Businesses.

Evaluation General Propose Adding a Down Select phase, reducing offerors having to perform orals.

Thank you for the recommendation.

Overall Solicitation

General 1 of 2 Backgroun The Solicitation Posting states "The Government contemplates soliciting these requirements as a Small Business Set Aside (SBSA) using the General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule Health IT Services Special Item Number. However, to maximize teaming, responses will be accepted for this notice from other than Small Businesses or GSA contract holders."

Question: Would the Government please clarify if this will be a SBSA solicitation using the GSA MAS IT schedule or if it will be a full and open solicitation based on the language that responses will be accepted from other than Small Businesses or GSA contract holders?

The solicitation is being set aside for Small Businesses with no further set aside categories. Other than Small Businesses will be unable to propose as a Prime Offeror.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Overall Solicitation

General 1 of 2 Backgroun The Solicitation Posting states "The Government contemplates soliciting these requirements as a Small Business Set Aside (SBSA) using the General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule Health IT Services Special Item Number. However, to maximize teaming, responses will be accepted for this notice from other than Small Businesses or GSA contract holders."

Question: To enable bidders to propose a more comprehensive technical solution, would the Government allow the use of GSA MAS IT SINs other than the Health IT

SIN?

We recommend the Government allow the use of GSA IT SINs to provide bidders additional LCATS.

The Government intends to solicit using GSA's Health IT Services (SIN), 54151HEAL. Contract holders may submit a modification, using GSA's Fast Lane procedures, to add the SIN or additional LCATs to their existing contract.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Surge Staffing & On-Call Support

General 110 51.5.4 The solicitation appears to be structured as Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), we note that there can be significant "1.5.4 Increased workload requirements" surges in workload, which may vary greatly from project to project. To ensure both effective program execution and fair risk allocation, we respectfully request clarification on the following points regarding surge requirements:

• Definition of Surge: Can the government clarify what constitutes a "surge" in this context? For example, is a surge defined by a specific increase in volume, complexity, or urgency of work?

• Frequency and Examples: How many surges are anticipated per year, and can the government provide examples of past scenarios that would qualify as a surge under this contract?

• FFP Structure and Surge Accommodation: How does the government envision accommodating significant surges within an FFP structure? Is there a baseline level of effort established for the FFP component, beyond which surge activities would be considered out of scope and subject to separate pricing or contract modification?

N/A The baseline work is defined within the PWS and its Attachments.

Increased workload requirements are generally handled by reallocating staff rather than onboarding new staff.

Contract change process would be used for extraordinary situations.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Overall Solicitation

General 1.7.3.1 1; Draft Solic Can the government confirm that under an FFP single task order award that the contractor will not be required to provide hourly billing or accounting, will not be bound by the proposed hourly rates for this task order on any future task orders, and has full latitude to manage their staff in execution of the performance requirements, as stated on PWS page 1?

Please see PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS at 1.8 which states, "Fully Burdened Hourly Rates proposed by the successful Offeror on the Price Matrix will be incorporated into the Award." In addition, please see the PWS at 1.7 for additional requirements for management of staff during contract execution.

Orals General 7, section 1Proposal InThe solicitation reads, “The Offeror’s proposal for Scenarios Subfactor will consist of two parts: a brief to support Oral Presentations and an Oral Presentation.” However, this section also references a “Scenarios Written Submission”. Can the government confirm that the “Scenarios Written Submission” and the “brief” are synonymous?

Yes. Please see the final solicitation for updated language.

Overall Solicitation

General N/A General – C We are a WOSB and GSA MAS holder under SIN 54151S, with active DHA performance. Given that we do not hold SIN 54151HEAL:

• Will GSA MAS holders under SIN 54151S be allowed to prime?

• Will the Government accept 8(a) STARS III or other SB vehicles?

• Will WOSB status be considered in best value evaluation?

Recommend:

1. Confirming cross-SIN eligibility (54151S vs. 54151HEAL)

2. Allowing other SB contract vehicles like 8(a) STARS III

3. Including WOSB status as an evaluated socioeconomic factor

Thank you for the recommendation.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Overall Solicitation

General N/A N/A In order to adequately respond to the Government's solicitation requirements, Offeror requests a minimum of 30 days (from Final RFP release to due date) to respond.

The Government intends to allow a minimum of 30 days from the issuance of the final solicitation until proposals are due.

Overall Solicitation

General N/A N/A In order to adequately prepare resources, Offeror respectfully requests that the Government sends out a pre-release notice 2 to 3 days before the RFP is released.

In order to maximize competition and facilitate proposal preparation, the Government intends to communicate its timelines as soon as practicable.

Overall Solicitation

General n/a n/a Due to current services for some or all of the PWS tasks' contract expiration on September 14, 2025, this presents an urgent risk to continuity of services that support DHA’s ACAT I-level MED365 program—an enterprise-critical effort foundational to Zero Trust, endpoint security, ICAM, and mission partner integration. Any delay in award or transition directly threatens the operational stability of a globally distributed infrastructure supporting over 200,000 users and 250,000 devices. Given the complexity, interdependencies, and security posture required, only vendors who engaged early through the RFI are realistically prepared to meet performance and transition timelines without mission degradation.

Given the limited time remaining before the current contract’s expiration on September 14, 2025, and the mission-critical nature of the ACAT I-level MED365 program, we recommend the Government limit competition to RFI respondents who have demonstrated early understanding of the requirements and are better positioned to meet the performance and transition schedule.

This approach will reduce the risk of operational disruption, ensure continuity of services supporting DHA’s enterprise Zero Trust and ICAM infrastructure, and allow for a timely, technically sound award aligned with the urgency of the requirement.

The Government does not intend to limit proposals other than set asides described in the solicitation. Please see the final solicitation for updated projection of period of performance dates.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Overall Solicitation

General NA NA Given the scale and complexity of the DDSB initiative, will the Government consider hosting an Industry Day to support continued market research and stakeholder engagement? This approach would align with the recent FAR simplification initiative to promote greater acquisition planning flexibility to better understand industry capabilities. Hosting such an event would foster transparency, support solution development, and enhance the quality of industry responses.

We respectfully recommend that the Government host an Industry Day (virtual or in-person). This event would ideally include a presentation by the program office and an open Q&A session. Such an event would significantly contribute to a more informed and competitive acquisition process.

Any Industry Day will be announced in advanced with adequate time to plan.

Mobile &

EUD

General Page 1 / 2 Backgroun Can the government provide more details about the 250,000 end user devices? Are they primarily laptops and mobile devices (formerly referred to as phones)?

CSFS recommends that the government provide more detail about any endpoint configuration items, including but not limited to the number of Laptops, Phones, Tablets, Desktops, IoT devices, etc. by OS and Location (time zone).

An Environment Snapshot will be provided in the Bidder's Library with the final solicitation.

Evaluation PROPOS

AL

INSTRU

CTIONS

2 Section L – Will experience with DHA, MHS, or similar DoD Health environments be given higher weight in technical evaluation?

Recommend evaluating current DHA incumbents or recent performers more favorably in the experience factor.

Please review the Basis of Award for the relative order of importance of the Government's evaluation Factors.

Past Performance will not be included in the evaluation.

Orals PROPOS

AL

INSTRU

CTIONS

6 Volume III Scenarios will be provided "no later than one (1) week prior to the Oral Presentation." This limits preparation time for complex technical scenarios.

Can scenarios be provided earlier?

Provide scenarios 2-3 weeks before oral presentations

Thank you for the recommendation.

The Government will consider this and provide any changes in the final solicitation.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Overall Solicitation

PROPOS

AL

INSTRU

CTIONS

8 Volume IV Key Personnel Letters of Commitment must be valid for 180 days from proposal submission, but award timeline is unclear. What is the anticipated award timeline?

Specify expected award timeline or adjust commitment period requirements

In order to maximize competition and facilitate proposal preparation, the Government intends to communicate its timelines as soon as practicable.

Please see the final solicitation for updated projection of period of performance dates.

DCWF/Staf fing Matrix

PROPOS

AL

INSTRU

CTIONS

9 1.7 Overall Staffing Approach requires Offeror’s approach to create staffing efficiencies and reduce the required staff and associated level of effort over time. Does the Government have a target reduction?

By not providing a target reduction, Offerors may be providing an unrealistic reduction for the sole purpose of reducing cost without taking into account what risk the reductions may cause. Recommend providing target reduction.

The Government does not have a target and welcomes proposals that realize efficiencies based on the Offeror's unique approach and implementation of best business practices.

Evaluation PROPOS

AL

INSTRU

CTIONS

9 Volume V Instructions state "Do not propose cost for Travel and ODCs" but these will be included in Total Evaluated Price. How will these costs be determined for evaluation?

Provide estimated Travel and ODC amounts or evaluation methodology

Please see PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS at 1.8 which states, "The Government has provided Not to Exceed Estimated Values for the Travel and ODC CLINs in the Price Matrix. The Government will include these CLINs as part of the Total Evaluated Price."

Key Personnel

PROPOS

AL

INSTRU

CTIONS

10 1.7.2 Key Personnel states the Offeror shall propose 2 named individuals to fulfill the Key Personnel roles specified in PWS Section 1.12. After reviewing PWS Section 1.12, the only positions referred to are the contract manager and alternate.

Please verify that the two positions which require resume submission are in fact the contract manager and alternate. Can the Government also verify that these two positions would be considered the on-site Program/Project Manager and Deputy Program/Project Manager?

Yes. The Contract Manager and/or Alternate Contract Manager are the only "Key Personnel" for the purposes of managing the workload.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Key Personnel

PROPOS

AL

INSTRU

CTIONS

11 1.7.3 Key Personnel states the Offeror shall propose 2 named individuals to fulfill the Key Personnel roles specified in PWS Section 1.12. After reviewing PWS Section 1.12, the only positions referred to are the contract manager and alternate.

Please verify if the contract manager and alternate are billable positions since they are not identified on either PWS Attachment 01 DDSB Labor Roles or PWS attachment 06 Estimated Workload.

Please see the updates to the PWS Attachment 1, SOL Attachments 2 & 3, and PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS.

Evaluation PROPOS

AL

INSTRU

CTIONS

General As currently written, the Government is not requesting any Corporate Experience/Past Performance information to bid. We understand that Past Performance has been submitted at the IDIQ level but not for the Health SIN. Since the supporting DDSB is unique we suggest the following:

Please review the Basis of Award for the relative order of importance of the Government's evaluation Factors.

Past Performance will not be included in the evaluation.

Package Proposal Instructio ns

1 1 The document specifies PDF format but doesn’t mention font, spacing, or layout guidance.

Recommend including formatting requirements (e.g., font size, margins, line spacing) to ensure consistent evaluation and prevent disqualification.

Please see updated PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS.

Package Proposal Instructio ns

1 1 It states that submitting more than one proposal results in disqualification.

Clarify whether this includes submissions by subcontractors on more than one team, e.g. teams with overlapping primes/subs.

The Government does not intend to prohibit cross-teaming.

Package Proposal Instructio ns

1 1.1 DefinitioWill there be a requirement to discuss Past Performance in the RFI submission?

Please review the Basis of Award for the relative order of importance of the Government's evaluation Factors.

Past Performance will not be included in the evaluation.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Overall Solicitation

Proposal Instructio ns

3 1.2 What length of time does the government anticipate providing to vendors between the solicitation release date, the solicitation question due date, and the proposal due date?

The Government intends to allow a minimum of 30 days from the issuance of the final solicitation until proposals are due.

Overall Solicitation

Proposal Instructio ns

3 1.2 Due Da What is the anticipated award date and period of performance start? This affects our Transition Plan and recruiting timeline.

Recommend the Government provide a target award and start timeline -even if tentative - to support realistic staffing availability, onboarding, and transition planning.

In order to maximize competition and facilitate proposal preparation, the Government intends to communicate its timelines as soon as practicable.

Please see the final solicitation for updated projection of period of performance dates.

Package Proposal Instructio ns

4 1 Instructions State: "The proposal shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Files (.pdf) except where a template was provided by the Government (Volume V)." Kindly confirm that Volume IV Staffing Matrix may also be provided in MS Excel format.

Update to instructions requested. Please see updated PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS.

Package Proposal Instructio ns

4 1 Instructions State: "When a template is provided by the Government, the quoter shall submit the template in the same file format as the original." For Excel spreadsheets, kindly confirm that it is acceptable to wrap text and/or resize column or row heights to ensure all content in each cell is visible to the evaluators.

Clarification requested for mutual understanding between the government and the offerors.

No adjustments should be made to formulas or formats in the Excel files provided by the Government.

Package Proposal Instructio ns

4 1.3 There is no specific formatting requirements: font and font size for text, graphics, and figures, margins, and line spacing.

Could the Government please provide clarification on the proposal formatting requirements?

Please see updated PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS.

DOCUM

ENT PAGE PARAGRACOMMENT/QUESTION RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Evaluation Proposal Instructio ns

4 1.3 As currently written, the Government is not requesting…