TBLD Q-As 29Jul25.pdf

Reference Question Answer

1 PWS Confirm whether the CUI marking is accurate and intentially applied to PWS Yes it is accurate

2 PWS If CUI is accurate, what specific elements within the RFP, specifically the PWS are considered CUI?

The CUI is accurate because these documents contain procurement-sensitive information including security-related requirements, government contact information, and proprietary data handling procedures.

3 PWS And if the marking was applied in error, can our team consider the RFP as CUI The markings were not applied in error.

Volume 3: Past Performance Please confirm the Offeror can submit past performance for work they performed as a subcontractor Offeror may submit past perfomance for work they performed as a subcontractor.

Volume 3: Past Performance

The RFP states that Offerors may use the same “contact” number to demonstrate successful performance for purposes of the three contract efforts. Please clarify if it is “contact” number, as currently worded, or “contract” number. Contract number

Volume 3: Past Performance

If Offerors may use the same contract number to demonstrate successful performance for purposes of the three contract efforts, is it the Government’s expectation that the offeror divide up that contract and submit it as three separate references that individually meet the required total dollar amount of funded performance, or will the Government accept three separate references with the same contract number, each with smaller dollar values, that, when viewed collectively, meet the required total dollar amount funded?

The dollar amount provided in the RFP provides a reference for the magnitude of the requirement. The offeror can submit references they deem relevant to the scope and magnitude of the requirement, whether more or less than the RFP posted dollar amount.

7 L: Instructions Will the government allow an 8-10 point font for tables and graphics? Yes

8 General Is Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) adherence a requirement for this contract? This requirement is exempt from CAS.

PWS; 3.1.4.1

Application Design

Can the Government please provide its preferred industry guidelines for applying Human-Centered Design practices to the interface design and organization of the TBLD capability?

By default, DIGITAL.gov (https://digital.gov/guides/hcd/) is the preferred baseline along with USWDS (https://designsystem.digital.gov/design-principles/); also reference Nielsen Norman Group (https://www.nngroup.com/)

10 PWS 3.1.4.4

The PWS states that the contractor shall provide real-time access to software development, collaboration tools, and techniques. Please confirm that Jira is acceptable for meeting this requirement. Yes, Jira is acceptable.

11 PWS 3.1.4.1.1.1

The PWS states that the Contractor shall ensure the system shall be backward compatible for at least two versions/releases. Please confirm if the current contractor is meeting this requirement. Ensuring two-version compatibility for code they did not originally develop will be challenging for any new awardee. Backward compatability was not required in the PWS for the current contractor.

RFP, Volume I (b) OCI; and PWS; 27.4

OCI

Our technical solution necessitates knowledge of data sharing functionality, interoperability and inner workings of various systems and other platforms for efficiency and responsiveness. Does the Government consider this a potential OCI that could preclude us from competing for other projects within JOMIS or federal work outside of JOMIS? The requirement integrates with other JOMIS applications. If there is an OCI issue, please address within a mitigation plan.

RFP, Volume III- Past Performance

The RFP states, “Should any of the past performance efforts be registered in CPARS, the Offeror must provide a copy of each completed annual CPAR report(s) for all performance that occurred within the three years preceding the proposal due date.” Will the government consider excluding the inclusion of any CPARS from the 5 page limitation for the Past Performance Volume? CPARS will not be included in the 5 page limit.

RFP, Volume III- Past Performance

The solicitation defines “Recent” past performance as any portion of work performed within three years prior to the proposal submission date and also requires that past performance examples have a total funded value of at least $10 million. For many small businesses operating under either NAICS 541519 or 541512, this combination of recency and dollar value may exceed the typical scope of their contracts and could limit competition. Would the Government consider lowering the total funded dollar threshold (e.g., to $3–5 million) and extending the recency window (e.g., to five years) to allow highly capable small businesses to compete while still maintaining the Government’s need for relevant and timely experience?

"Recent" will remain as three years prior to proposal submission. The dollar amount provided in the RFP provides a reference for the magnitude of the requirement.

The offeror can submit references they deem relevant to the scope and magnitude of the requirement, whether more or less than the RFP posted dollar amount.

15 SAM/SF1449 Please clarify if the NAICS code for this RFP is 541519 as listed on SAM or 541512 as listed on the SF1449 form 541512

16 General What is the relationship between the TBLD-M program and the Armed Services Blood Program? The Armed Services Blood Program is the functional community for TBLD. The TBLD system is developed for them to fulfill their capability gaps.

17 Has development and MVCP been completed for all 5 Key Capabilities? If not, which Key Capability needs to be completed?

TBLD has met its MVCR requirements. MVCR is minimum viable capability release (MVCR). The majority of the TBLD capabilities will have been completed by the time of contract award.

Has JOMIS fully stood up a CI/CD pipeline in a govt cloud solution? If so, has the environment been CATO’d and will the next contract be required to maintain this environment and certifications? Yes. This envirionment has an ATO. Yes, the next contractor will be required to maintain the environment and certifications.

19 Is a data synchronization the core technology for data transfer between 3 tiers (point of entry, facility, central repository) Yes

20 What is the govt greatest environment or architecture challenge?

Accounting for DDIL and the need to efficiently and correctly keep data in sync with cloud enterprise as authoritative source and all node/remote instances staying aligned, plus data sync within a facility/area that has multiple local instances staying in sync among all local devices even if no comms to enterprise cloud are available

21 Has hardware been selected? Will this contract be required to determine, procure, and deploy hardware? No, there is no hardware selected. No, the contract will not require the determination, procurement or deployment of hardware.

PWS; pg 1, para 1.1

To better effect a tranistion can we get access to the technical library, current architecture, and ATO?

Subject to anything being labeled as CUI and therefore would be distributed to health.mil CAC'd accounts during transition: High level of the current architecture could be shared, to be provided through Enterprise Architecture; ATO on system is currently fully accredited, access can be granted with appropriate eMASS permissions; full data rights currently exist - the technical library will be provided upon transition

PWS, pg 2, para 1

What is Government's expectation of deployment model and approach for TBLD-M deployment to blood sites? Is a phased rollout of TBLD-M software to blood sites based on supply chain area an acceptable approach?

A phased rollout approach will be taken for TBLD deployment. The intent is to begin deploying to Combatant Commands (CCMDs) with less complexity and then progressively deploy to CCMDs with more complexity, with complexity defined as quantity of sites, frequency of transactions and mission operational tempo.

PWS, pg 2, para 3 For each of these sub-capabilities, are there detailed functional requirements/user stories that can be provided or will these be developed after contract award?

Yes. Each of the TBLD capabilities has its own set of requirements and associated user stories. The majority of these capabilities will be developed by the time of contract award.

PWS, pg 2, para

3.1.2 Has the TBLD-M system achieved the appropriate ATO or ATO-C and ATC? Yes

PWS, pg 2, para 3.1.2

Sentence states "Performance will also entail providing ongoing maintenance and operations support after initial fielding…". Is there an estimated timing for initial fielding of TBLD? TBLD is estimated to field in January 2026.

PWS, pg 3, para

3.1.4.2 Are there any specific digital engineering tools that the Government prefers or that we would need to be compatible with?? Format alignment including import capability with popular MBSE tools will be considered. Cameo is targeted but not yet implemented

PWS, pg 7, para 3.2 Is the JOMIS TEP available prior to response submission? No. This document will be made available at or just after award.

PWS, pg 7, para

3.2.1 Are there any constraints or preferences on the use of Open Source software?

Open Source should focus on technology on the DOD approved product list or available through any of the DOD repositories such as Iron Bank to avoid delays from additional cyber evaluation and authorization

PWS, pg 10, para

3.3.1.3 Regarding desired Data Services, is data tagging/cataloging for Zero Trust and ABAC solutioning expected to be part of the Data Services? Yes, this is part of the data pillar of zero trust and DHA is actively working towards the initial compliance Sept 2027

PWS, pg 10, para

3.4 Are there specific automated testing tools or frameworks mandated by the Government? UI Path is currently used for test automation by Government DT&E; there are no other mandates

PWS, pg 10, para

3.4 Is the JOMIS T&E Program Strategy document available for review? No. This document will be made available at or just after award.

Section L: Subfactor 1 Can "quickly" be defined? Quickly being defined as immediately. Once the ingestion of program code/data is completed we need the new vendor to engage with providing development support.

Section L: Subfactor 2 Will the government provide access to the technical library and other related documents to build a notional timeline? Technical library will be made available at or just after award in order to review and build timeline

35 PWS, para 3.1 Has TBLD-M achieved ATO, or Continuous ATO? Yes

36 PWS, para 3.1.2 Can Gov't clarify what are the official MDA Milestones that TBLD has cleared and what MDA milestones remain to be cleared. TBLD follows the software acquisition pathway. We have MDA appoval to enter the Execution Phase. MVCR has been declared.

HT003824R0010 Q&As

PWS, para 3.3.1.2

Can gov't provide clarification on what Enterprise Monitoring Solution is supported by Host Environment vs. Development Vendor?

The Host Environment, such as CloudOne AWS, is responsible for the following aspects of system monitoring:

1. Operation and Management:

o Management of all assets operating in the CloudOne platform, including account management, cybersecurity, monitoring, and incident management.

2. Monitoring Tools:

o Tools like CloudWatch and AWS OpenSearch are utilized for monitoring within the AWS GovCloud environment.

o CloudOne also supports multi-account monitoring and provides metrics such as incident response/resolution times and system performance metrics.

3. Security Monitoring:

o Security monitoring, including tools like Host-Based Security System (HBSS) and Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (ACAS), is explicitly the responsibility of the CloudOne vendor for microservices, services, systems, or infrastructure deployed to AWS GovCloud.

Development Vendor Responsibilities:

The Development Vendor is responsible for implementing monitoring solutions specific to their products and technology stacks. This includes:

1. Product-Specific Monitoring:

o Each product (e.g., OMDS, BATDOK-J, OpMed CDP, MedCOP) may use different monitoring tools and methods tailored to their development needs.

o Examples include:

§ Zabbix and Graylog for OpMed CDP.

§ ELK Stack (Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana) for OMDS.

§ Local logging mechanisms for BATDOK-J.

2. Integration with JOMIS Monitoring:

o Development vendors are expected to send monitoring data to JOMIS for analysis, where applicable.

o Vendors must ensure their monitoring solutions align with JOMIS's overarching strategy and objectives, such as reliability, availability, and maintainability

(RAM).

3. Disconnected Environments:

For products operating in Disconnected, Intermittent, and Limited (DIL) environments, vendors must implement local logging or code instrumentation to ensure monitoring continuity

Appendix A Is Vendor expected to integrate the TBLD-M data with HCD products ( BATDOK, OpMed CDP, MHSG-T) or will this work already be completed prior to award? The vendor will be expected to complete this work after award.

39 PWS, pg 44 Can the Government provide unlocked and/or separate versions of the embedded spreadsheets? Yes

40 RFP, pg 54 The requested information for the past performance references asks "For any Government contract, include the CAGE code ." Can the government confirm that the offeror should include their CAGE code for each reference? CAGE code is not required.

41 RFP. pg 53 Can the government provide clarification on what acquisition milestones have been met by the current program and what official milestones have yet to be cleared? TBLD follows the software acquisition pathway. We have MDA appoval to enter the Execution Phase. MVCR has been declared.

42 PWS, para 3.1.4.4 Can the government confirm the scope of this effort is to develop deployable packages but not perform the actual deployment? Confirmed.

43 RFP, pg 52 Can font size less than 12 be used in tables and graphics? 8-10 pt font is acceptable on tables and graphics.

44 PWS, para 3.2.1.1 Can the government confirm the status of the ATO and will the ATO documentation be provided upon award TBLD has an ATO and the documentation will be provided upon award.

45 PWS, para 3.2.1.1 Can the govt provide details regarding the current state of the application's technology stack and its readiness to deploy as of award?

At the time of award the TBLD application will have its core functionality completed. The technology stack will be production ready with deployment estimated for January 2026. The general technology stack for TBLD-M includes the following:

1. PostgreSQL

2. PsExec

3. Cryptographic Security OpenSSL

4. DISA-GCDS Single Sign-On (SSO)

6. AWS GovCloud

7. Network Security Application Load Balancer (ALB)

9. Development and Integration Tools Python

10. Monitoring and Vulnerability Management ACAS (Assured Compliance Assessment Solution)

46 RFP, pg 53 Can the govt provide information about the current backlog of IRs and To Be Implemented features that the new contractor is expected to implement within the period of performance of the contract to allow for accurate development of the requested notational timeline. The contractor will be expected to resolve high priority IRs, epics and non-functional requirements that are essential for operational readiness.

RFP Page 52 – General - H

The Font requirement is not less than Times New Roman Size 12 font, however, will the government allow for tables and graphics to be use Times New Roman or Arial Size 9 or 10 font? 8-10 pt font is acceptable on tables and graphics.

RFP Page 54 – Volume 3: Past Performance

The solicitation states: "Should any of the past performance efforts be registered in CPARS, the Offeror must provide a copy of each completed annual CPAR report(s) for all performance that occurred within the three years preceding the proposal due date." If a contract does not have a CPARS uploaded every single year of the contract to date, how should the Offeror address this in the proposal? May the Offeror supplement the submission with other relevant documentation to reflect the full scope of performance within the three-year window? Upload CPARS for the years available and provide supplemental data if no CPARS data is available.

RFP Page 5 – SF1449 Item No

“ The contractor shall furnish data in accordance with Appendix C (CDRL Schedule). This CLIN is not separately priced. The cost of data including all costs of preparing, formatting, reproducing, and delivery of data shall be included in CLIN 0001.” Could the government please provide the referenced Appendix C (CDRL Schedule)? Yes

50 Who is the incumbent? Dark Wolf Solutions

51 What is the current contract number? HT003825C0006

52 When was the contract awarded, what was the cost of the contract, and for how long? March 2025, $2.5M, 6 months

53 How many employees in total work on this contract, and what are their labor categories? Proprietary information

54 How many engineers and software developers are currently working on the project? Proprietary information

55 What is the current solution not providing that you are looking for in a new solution? The solution is moving from development to enhancements.

56 What are the ATO requirements? Were they met by the previous contractor? Yes, TBLD has an ATO and the requriements were met by the incumbent contractor.

57 Is the TBLD-M live right now? No. TBLD-M has not yet achieved go-live status.

58 Does this need to link with current EBMS products? If yes, which ones? LIFETRAK? HCLL? No. There currently is no requirement to integrate with those products.

59 Will the contract awardee take over the current infrastructure that has already been built? Yes.

We believe we have a strong technical approach if we are afforded more time to complete the proposal. Would the government consider extending the deadline until at least 2 weeks after the questions are answered? An updated proposal submission date is listed in SAM.gov.

RFP Section L, Volume 3, pg 54

Please confirm that the past performance from members of an SBA-approved mentor-protégé Joint Venture will be evaluated. What documentation does the Government require to satisfy the “…contractual commitment that all members will continue as part of the joint venture during the entire period of performance of the to-be-awarded contract”? Past performance will be evaluated. A statement confirming continuance of joint venture during POP or an agreement letter between the parties will suffice.

RFP Volume 3:

Past Performance pg 54

The solicitation requires “the Offeror to include the following aspects: (i) The contract type (firm-fixed price). Please confirm that only firm-fixed price contracts can be used as Past Performance. No, past performance on other contract types other than firm-fixed price are permissable.

63 PWS 15.14 pg 22 “Systems must have and maintain an Authority to Operate (ATO) or ATO with Conditions by contract award.” Does the Government anticipate an ATO is in effect at the time of contract award? Yes, TBLD has an ATO and the requriements were met by the incumbent contractor.

RFP Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

The Government has stated proposals shall be not less than not less than Times New Roman 12 pt. font. Please consider allowing a smaller font size and other than Times New Roman (e.g., Arial Narrow, Calibri) for tables and graphics? 8-10 pt font is acceptable on tables and graphics.

RFP Section L, Volume 3 pg 54

The RFP states “(v) Should any of the past performance efforts be registered in CPARS, the Offeror must provide a copy of each completed annual CPAR report(s) for all performance that occurred within the three years preceding the proposal due date.” Please confirm CPARs are outside the 5-page limit for this volume. CPARS will not be included in the 5 page limit.

66 PWS General Will the Government provide access to historical data from the Theater Medical Data Store (TMDS) needed for developing new TBLD-M functionalities? Yes. This will provided post award.

PWS Section 27 Contract Personnel pg 30 Which 3.x PWS tasks require ADP/IT Tier 1 versus Tier 2?

The tasks in section 3 of the PWS that will need Tier 1 support are the following: section 3.3.1.1 TBLD Data Hosting and Respository Infrastructure and section 3.5 Fielding Support. The tasks noted in the remaining portions of section 3 will can be satisfied with Tier 2 support.

PWS 3.1.1

Transition-In 5.1 Transition-In Period 2 pg 15

Please confirm the successful Offeror will assume responsibility for any and all aspects of the work at the end of the transition-in period. If not, please provide the specific responsibilities and associated timeframes.

The successful Offeror will assume responsibility of work once the transition-in period begins. The incumbent will function in a supporting capacity with continued phasing out while Offeror phases in.

PWS Section 3.1.2 Capability Enhance pg 2 Please provide the quantity of patches/bug fixes that offerors shall assume over the period of performance?

That is to be determined by the amount of patching and bug fixes by the incumbent contractor prior to contract award. That is the only time we will know the true quantity.

70 PWS General The PWS does not provide sufficient information to develop a level of effort and associated firm fixed price. Would the Government please provide descriptions of the capability enhancements to be made and functionality to be developed with the associated timeframes.

That is to be determined. We continue to prioritize and reprioritize our product backlog and can only provide an accurate set of remaining features at the time of contract award.

PWS 3.5 Fielding Support

Please provide an estimate or historical data relative to the number of Tier 3 help desk calls by priority level so that we can develop a level of effort and associated firm fixed price. We currently do not have that data for TBLD. This will be determined by mission operational tempo once TBLD is operationally deployed.

72 Pricing Excel/RFQ Can the Government confirm the supplies/services for CLIN 0008 – 5008? CLIN 0008 - 50008 are for the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).

Volume 3: Past Performance Page

The solicitation defines “Relevant” past performance as including contract type, specifically firm-fixed price (FFP). However, it is unclear why relevance is tied exclusively to FFP contracts. Could the Government clarify the rationale for requiring past performance to be FFP, and whether it would consider revising this criterion to allow any contract type that otherwise meets the requirements for scope, complexity, dollar value, and period of performance? Relevant past performance can include FFP contracts, however, past performance under other contract types will be deemed relevant.

Volume 3: Past Performance Page

Limiting relevancy to FFP contracts may unnecessarily restrict competition and exclude otherwise highly relevant experience performed under different contract types. Would the Government consider removing the FFP requirement from the definition of “Relevant” past performance? Relevant past performance can include FFP contracts, however, past performance under other contract types will be deemed relevant.

Section L, General, Page 52 of 57 Would the Government consider extending the page limit for Volume 2 - Technical to allow for a more complete response to the volume? No

Section L, Volume 2

- Technical, Page 53 of 57

The RFP states that “The Offeror’s technical volume should demonstrate its understanding and ability to address all elements of the PWS with specific attention on the technical subfactors identified will be evaluated.” Could the Government please clarify whether offerors are expected to address all elements of the PWS in Volume II, or if the evaluation will be based primarily on how well the offeror addresses the technical subfactors and the corresponding portions of the PWS that relate to those subfactors?

The source selection authority (SSA) will select the Offeror whose proposal is considered the best value to the Government based on the evaluation of the factors and sub-factors specified in Section M of this solicitation.

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated with respect to three Factors:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price Past Performance will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Where past performance is “Unacceptable” the proposal will be ineligible for award.

RFP Section L, Volume 3, p.54

The Government’s submission instructions for the Past Performance factor state that “Offerors will be required to identify three (3) contract efforts that display recent and relevant past performance…”. Can the Government clarify whether offerors can identify up to 3 contracts or if exactly 3 contract efforts must be submitted? Up to 3 contracts.

RFP Section L, Volume 2, pp.53- 54/Section M, Factor 1, p.56

Can the Government confirm that Sub-Factors 1-3 within the Technical Factor are weighted equally when determining an overall Technical Factor rating? Yes, they are weighted equally within the Technical Factor.

79 RFP Section L, pg52 For graphics, will the Government allow offerors to use a font size of 10pt and a font face other than Times New Roman? 8-10 pt font is acceptable on tables and graphics.

80 General Will the government clarify whether a specific Agile framework (ex: SAFe, Scrum, Kanban) is required, or if the contractor has flexibility to propose the delivery approach and cadence? While Agile is referenced throughout the PWS, no particular methodology is listed. The government has an established sprint candence and specified delivery apporach. Our Agile approach combines aspects of multiple frameworks.

81 PWS 3.2; pg 6 How will the government define success for TBLD over the course of the contract? Are there specific mission outcomes or user impacts that are prioritized? System functionality, operational readiness and user satisfaction.

82 PWS 3.1.4.3; pg 4 Can the government clarify how often contractors are expected to engage directly with end users (during discovery, design, and usability testing)? While the PWS references “User Assessment Events,” it does not define their frequency or the expected level of contractor involvement. Contractors are essential members of the government team and will be in contact with end users on a weekly basis.

83 PWS 3.1.4.3; pg 3 Has the government identified specific user personas or use cases (beyond the general reference to “Roles 1–3”) to guide development? Yes.

84 PWS 3.3.1.1; pg 9 While the PWS requires full data migration from the legacy TMDS blood module, can the government clarify the anticipated format, completeness, and timing of access to the legacy dataset; and detail any technical onboarding support will be provided to facilitate a smooth transition? These technical details can be provided upon time of award.

85 PWS 39.1; pg 39 Will the contractor be expected to participate in broader JOMIS or DHMS delivery cadences (ex: PI planning, governance reviews), or will TBLD-M operate on a standalone schedule? The contractor will be expected to participate in broader JOMIS or DHMS delivery cadences.

86 Is there an estimated budget or other gauge of effort magnitude you can share?

The dollar amount provided in the RFP provides a reference for the magnitude of the requirement. The offeror can submit references they deem relevant to the scope and magnitude of the requirement, whether more or less than the RFP posted dollar amount.

87 Is this acquisition considered a continuation of the existing effort or a new or substantially new requirement? A continuation of the existing effort.

88 Given the proximity of the question receipt date to the proposal due date, will you provide additional time to submit proposals? An updated proposal submission date is listed in SAM.gov.

89 Is there an expected or preferred number of sprint teams? No.

Would the government consider changing the requirement to allow consideration of first-tier subcontractor past performance and not only prime contractor past performance? Offeror may submit past perfomance for work they performed as a subcontractor.

91 PWS 3.4 Is the referenced JOMIS test document available during the proposal stage? No.

92 Considering this is a small business opportunity, would the government consider lowering the past performance dollar threshold?

The dollar amount provided in the RFP provides a reference for the magnitude of the requirement. The offeror can submit references they deem relevant to the scope and magnitude of the requirement, whether more or less than the RFP posted dollar amount.

93 PWS 12.1 Both boxes are checked. Please clarify. That is a clerical error. The contractor WILL provide contractor furnished services required in support of this task order.

RFP Page 54, Volume 3, Past Performance Section contains duration reference requirements of both six months (first paragraph) and one year (sub para. iii). Please clarify. Correction: all past performance efforts referenced must have at least 6 months of performance completed.