RFP_DeploymentSolutions_QA_2024.04.10.pdf

Q# Date

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

1 4/6/2026 General We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

While not a direct follow-on, aspects of this acquisition have been performed under N0003915D0044 (Leidos, Inc.), HT003821D0001 (Cherokee Nation), HT003823C0009 (Ellumen, Inc.), HT003824C0004 (Accenture Federal Services, LLC), and HT003825C0003 (Advancia Aeronautics, LLC).

2 4/7/2026 Solicitation Box 8 The solicitation (box 8) states the Offer Due Date to be 27 Feb 2026 12:00PM. Will the Government update the solicitation to reflect the correct date and time.

Yes, the amendment will be posted to SAM.gov

3 4/7/2026 General

My goal in reaching out is just to confirm that I accurately understood the information provided in the RFP to ensure there is no misunderstandings on my part. That being said, I had seen that the expectation is that this work will be structured as a multiple award IDIQ with a five year performance period, and total ceiling value of $300M, and believe that I saw the anticipated start date is around June 2026, did I understand all the information provided accurately?

I also noted that this requirement is loosely considered a follow-on to the following contracts: Leidos, Inc. (N0003915D0044), Cherokee Nation (HT003821D0001), Ellumen, Inc. (HT003823C0009), Accenture Federal Services, LLC (HT003824C0004), and Advancia Aeronautics, LLC (HT003825C0003) and was wondering if these vendors are considered incumbents?

3a. Yes, the anticipated start date is June 2026.

3b. See question 1.

4 4/7/2026 52.212-1 Section 4.0, Proposal Instructions

Support Contractor Proposal Access Consent is a required element of the Offeror's Cover Letter; however, Table 2 shows Section 3: Support Contractor Proposal Access Consent Form as a required document within Volume III. Please provide the applicable consent form for completion or provide confirmation that the form is not required and consent will be addressed in the Cover Letter.

Table 2 will be revised to match 52.212-1, VOLUME III: CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, (3) Support Contractor Proposal Access Consent which provides that the offeror's Cover Letter (Volume III Section 1) to this solicitation MUST clearly state permission is granted allowing the contractor support identified above access to the contractor's proposal.

5 4/7/2026 52.212-1 Reps & Certs, Table 2 Proposal Volumes

Please confirm whether the Reps/Certs within the solicitation are required to be completed or will the Offeror's active SAM record which include completed Reps/Certs suffice. If solicitation Reps/Certs are required to be completed separately, please further clarify where this should be included within the proposal (Table 2).

The offeror's active SAM record will suffice; however, it is the offeror's responsibility to ensure their SAM record is current.

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

6 4/7/2026 52.212-1 Addendum 1 - OCI 18

RFP Reference - Final Solicitation Addendum 1 expressly states “This contract is likely to introduce biased ground rules, hinder objectivity, and create unequal access to information. To mitigate potential conflicts of interest, the Contractor, by mutual agreement, will be ineligible to perform (as a contractor, subcontractor, or team member) on any future contracts or agreements with our agency partners or subordinate organizations for the duration of this contract and for twelve (12) months following its conclusion. This exclusion does not apply to follow-on actions that directly continue the effort under this contract.” Question: Can the Government confirm that the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) language in Solicitation Addendum 1, quoted above, will apply at the future task order level, as opposed to the current IDIQ contract award level stage? This confirmation will ensure that (i) any OCI plans or preclusions are appropriately tailored to the specific scope, requirements, and relevant agency or subordinate organizations (which is currently undefined), by allowing the government to more specifically assess the potential OCI impacts and determined the specific mitigations that may be warranted or necessary, and (ii) the government continues to reap the benefit of broader competition by not unduly restricting offerors from participating in the IDIQ contract award (as some may not participate due to the potential broad or undefined downstream impact) or from any future procurements (by reinforcing that any preclusions are specifically scoped to the TO and not overly restrictive).

52.212-1, Contract Documents, OCI Declaration and Disclosure provides offerors an opportunity to identify any known, potential, or perceived OCIs so the Government may perform an independent assessment.

The Government anticipates that potential OCIs will exist with awarded contracts that support mid-office, back-office, or similar service contracts supporting internal business services. As a general rule: To prevent an unfair competitive advantage, contractors and subcontractors performing "mid-office" or "back-office" support functions are generally prohibited from working on prime mission products. This is because their support role, which often involves providing strategic input and recommendations to the Government, could create an OCI.

For clarity, the PEO DHMS Deployment Solutions RFP is considered "prime mission product." There are no known future OCIs at this time for prime mission products.

7 4/7/2026 52.212-1 SubK Plan Requirement 27

The RFP includes the contract clauses DFARS 252.219-7996 and FAR 52.219-9 Alternate I, which indicate that a subcontracting plan is required. However, the RFP does not provide instructions for how or when the plan should be submitted. Please confirm whether the subcontracting plan is due after proposal submission upon request by the Contracting Officer, and if it is due with the proposal, please identify the volume or section and the submission method.

Please refer to the amended solicitation, Attachment 19, Scope and Ordering Guide, Section 8.3.3, "For each task order, the Contracting Officer must consider small business participation as a potential evaluation factor. The Contracting Officer shall either use Small Business Participation as an evaluation factor or formally document why a Small Business Subcontracting Plan does not apply, in accordance with RFO 19.109."

8 4/7/2026 General

To ensure all offerors have adequate time to review and incorporate information provided in Exhibits 1-11 and are able to provide a high-quality, technically compliant solution, will the government please extend the proposal due date one week to April 15th?

The Government will amend the solicitation to extend the due date to April 21 at 4 PM ET.

9 4/7/2026 52.212-1 60/62

The table on Page 60 of the Solicitation document states that the "Support Contractor Proposal Access Consent Form" is to be submitted as a separate file, as part of Volume III. However, the Support Contractor Proposal Access Consent section on Page 62 lists that the Cover Letter (which is a standalone file, separate from the Consent Form) must state that permission is granted allowing the contractor identified above access to the contractor's proposal.

Can the Government please clarify if the Cover Letter must include a statement in addition to or in lieu of the Support Contractor Proposal Access Consent Form? If the Consent Form is required, can the government please release it as an Attachment to the

RFP?

See Question 4.

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

10 4/7/2026 General

Given that proposals will include proprietary and competition-sensitive information, can the Government confirm whether the following restrictions apply to any AI tool processing confidential information within the proposal:

1. Proposal data will not be used to train, fine-tune, or otherwise improve any AI or machine learning models;

2. Proposal data will be used solely for the purpose of evaluation under this procurement and not for any secondary purpose;

3. Proposal data will not be retained within AI systems beyond what is required for evaluation and applicable records retention requirements;

4. Proposal data will not be comingled with data from other proposals within the AI tool;

and

5. Proposal data will not be shared with third parties or used across other programs, procurements, or systems.

If these conditions cannot be met, can the Government provide an alternative submission method that does not involve AI processing?"

The Government will make its best efforts to protect proprietary and competition-sensitive information. The Government has made every effort to confirm the following are true to the best of our knowledge.

1. Proposal data will not be used to train, fine-tune, or otherwise improve any AI or machine learning models.

2. Proposal data will be used solely for the purpose of evaluation under this procurement and not for any secondary purpose.

3. Proposal data will not be retained within AI systems beyond what is required for evaluation and applicable records retention requirements.

4. Proposal data will not be comingled with data from other proposals within the AI tool.

5. Proposal data will not be shared with third parties or used across other programs, procurements, or systems.

11 4/7/2026 52.212-1 Section 4.0, Proposal Instructions

On Page 57, the solicitation states that if an Offeror "conditions its proposal with assumptions" the Government may deem it ineligible for an award, however, Page 61 requires Offerors to include their assumptions in discussing their approaches to the scenarios. Please confirm that Offerors that comply with the requirements in Page 61 will not be deemed ineligible for award.

Offerors providing assumptions to FACTOR 1: CHALLENGE SCENARIO will not be deemed ineligible for award. Assumptions are required for FACTOR 1 in order to evaluate the offeror's proposal.

Assumptions as noted in 52.212-1, 2.1.1(b)(3) is warning offerors about adding condition assumptions beyond the terms and conditions in the solicitation to be included at contract award.

12 4/7/2026 PWS CMMC Level 2 Requirement 63 Recommend that the Government consider deferring the CMMC Level 2 requirement from the IDIQ level to the task order level, in light of the extended certification timeline and the limited availability of certified third-party assessment organizations.

Moving the CMMC requirement to the task order level does not provide benefit. Currently CMMC Level 2 is self-assessed and then applied to SPRS. This will not change if under the IDIQ or task order. After November 10th, 2026, the C3PAO requirement will still be required for new and current contracts. The entire corporation does not need to have a CMMC certification. The requirement applies to the division that is working with the Government.

13 4/7/2026 PWS CMMC Level 2 Requirement 63 The document lists that CMMC level required by this solicitation is CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO). Can the government please clarify if Offerors are required to have CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) at the time of proposal submission, or prior to the IDIQ award?

Because the contract will be awarded before November 10th, 2026, the Offeror can utilize the current self-assessment process for level 2 and have it recorded in SPRS. After November 10th, 2026, ALL contracts at level 2 dealing with CUI will be required to have a successful and completed C3PAO certification and have it recorded in SPRS. It’s the Government’s understanding that if a contractor does not have the certification no new task orders under this contract can be awarded, extended, or options exercised for contracts not obtaining C3PAO certification.

14 4/7/2026 PWS CMMC Level 2 Requirement 63 The document lists that CMMC level required by this solicitation is CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO). Can the government please clarify if Offerors are required to have CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) at the time IDIQ award or at the time of subsequent task order(s) award?

See questions 12 and 13.

15 4/7/2026 Solicitation 63 Can the government please clarify whether offerors with an active POA&M are considered eligible for award, and if so, under what conditions or limitations?

It will depend on the active POAM, How many days it was awarded and why, Scope of the POAM, situation the POAM was awarded, and if the scope applies to the tasks or requirements from the IDIQ. This is a matter of responsibility as provided in 52.212-2.

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

16 4/7/2026 Solicitation 63 How will the government evaluate partial compliance or systems undergoing remediation at the time of proposal submission?

There is not enough information to fully answer this question. The uniqueness of the offeror’s situation does not allow for an all-encompassing response. Please review the requirements for CMMC compliance on the Cyber AB website or consult the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO)/DFARS RFO for additional information.

17 4/7/2026 PWS CMMC Level 2 Requirement 63

Given the short turnaround for the IDIQ RFP response and the limited Certified Third- Party Assessment Organizations, can the government please clarify if the Offerors can demonstrate their CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) compliance at the task order level instead of at the IDIQ level?

See Question 12 and 13. Before November 10th, 2026, self-assessment and recorded in SPRS for level 2 CUI is acceptable. After November 10th, 2026, all contracts and task orders must have C3PAO certification and recorded in SPRS for level 2 CUI before award, option, or extension can be given.

18 4/7/2026 PWS CMMC Level 2 Requirement 63 Please clarify if any specific documentation or evidence, beyond SPRS entry, is required to be submitted with the proposal to demonstrate compliance.

Offerors may choose to submit a copy of the third party C3PAO certification with Volume III: Contract Documents, otherwise the Government will search the Cyber AB marketplace and SPRS for compliance as a matter of responsibility.

19 4/8/2026 Addendum 1 — OCI Addendum 1 - OCI 18

Per the solicitation “To mitigate potential conflicts of interest, the Contractor, by mutual agreement, will be ineligible to perform (as a contractor, subcontractor, or team member) on any future contracts or agreements with our agency partners or subordinate organizations for the duration of this contract and for twelve (12) months following its conclusion”

Question: Can the Government clarify this statement and also its definition of agency partners? This is extremely restrictive as any uniquely qualified offeror will have current, past, and likely future contracts, whether prime contractor or subcontractor within the Department of Defense/War to include Defense Health Agency, and Department of Veterans Affairs, among others.

See Amendment 0002 when published; specific agency partners or subordinate organizations will be identified at the task order level. See Questions 6 and 23.

20 4/8/2026 PWS

3.2.2.5 Data Management

and Migration

What are the standard data volumes and validation criteria for migration across typical deployments?

Specificity such as this may vary by product and task order.

21 4/8/2026 52.212-1 60

Regarding section 52.212-1, subsection 4.0, Table 2 of HT003826RE001 on Page 60, please clarify if there is a Government-provided form that vendors are to submit for Volume III, Section 3: Support Contractor Proposal Access Consent Form or if vendors' statement of confirmation in the cover letter eliminates this form requirement. If there is a Government-provided form vendors are to use, please direct vendors to its location as we are unable to locate the form in the solicitation on SAM.gov.

See Question 4.

22 4/8/2026

Special Contract Requirements - Security & Clearances

24-30

Clarification: The PWS anticipates classified work and access to sensitive systems at the Task Order level. Will the Government permit contractors to initiate and maintain security clearances for personnel at the IDIQ level, in anticipation of Task Order work, so cleared staff can begin performance immediately upon Task Order award?

Awardees shall contact the COR at time of award.

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

23 4/8/2026 OCI - General Addendum 1 - OCI

Clarification: The RFP’s OCI language appears to preclude the contractor from entering into any contract with “agency partners” (e.g., VA, Coast Guard, and others) during the term of this contract and for 12 months after, regardless of scope.

Would the Government consider revising the provision to apply at the task order level as opposed to the IDIQ? At the task order level, the Government will have a clear understanding of the specific scope of work and potential OCIs related to such specific scope of work?

Amendment 0002 has moved ADDENDUM 1 - Organizational Conflict of Interest to the task order level. See Question 6. Offeror's shall still submit OCI Declaration and Disclosure as provided by 52.212-1, VOLUME III: CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Section (2).

24 4/8/2026 OCI - Definition of DHMS-related work

Addendum 1 - OCI

Clarification: The RFP and warranty/OCI provisions reference “DHMS related work” but do not define this term. Does “DHMS related work” mean (a) only work directly within the DHMS/DHMSM portfolio as defined in the RFP, (b) any work on telehealth, health management, or EHR related systems for any federal agency, or (c) some other defined scope? Please provide a clear definition and examples.

A clear definition of “DHMS related work” is necessary for offerors to determine what current and future work (e.g., PMO, telehealth, or health IT efforts for VA, Coast Guard, or other agencies) may be restricted or require mitigation.

Would the government consider revising the provision to apply at the task order level as opposed to the IDIQ? At the task order level, the Government will have a clear understanding of the specific scope of work and potential OCIs related to such specific scope of work.

See Questions 6 and 23.

25 4/8/2026 OCI - Agency Partners (VA, Coast Guard, Others)

OCI

Clarification: As written, the OCI and warranty language could be interpreted to bar the contractor from performing any work for “agency partners” (such as the VA and Coast Guard), regardless of whether that work is related to DHMS or the DHMSM portfolio.

Please clarify whether the restriction is intended to apply only to work that (a) directly supports DHMS/DHMSM systems, or (b) uses non public information obtained under this contract, rather than to all contracts with those agencies.

Clarifying how restrictions apply to “agency partners” (including VA and Coast Guard) will help offerors evaluate potential impacts on existing and planned work with these agencies, and understand what types of engagements may create actual or perceived

OCI.

Will the government consider revising this provision to apply at the task order level instead of the IDIQ when the government has a clear understanding of the scope of work and potential impact and the potential agency partner can be identified.

See Questions 6 and 23.

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

26 4/8/2026

OCI - PMO &

Advisory Support

OCI

Clarification: The work under this RFP appears largely PMO and advisory in nature and the DHMSM portfolio description includes support for telehealth, population health analytics, and health management applications. Please clarify whether PMO or advisory work for other federal agencies (e.g., VA telehealth or health IT PMO efforts) would be considered “DHMS related” and thus restricted, or whether such work would generally be permissible provided it does not use non public DHMS information or directly support

DHMSM

managed systems.

Understanding whether PMO and advisory work for other agencies—especially in telehealth and health IT, such as the VA account—is within the scope of “DHMS related” restrictions is critical for offerors with existing or planned health portfolios to assess OCI risk and the viability of bidding.

Would the Government consider removing the duration language at the IDIQ level and instead potentially inserting at the task order level. At the task order level the government will have a clear understanding of the scope of work and will be able to assess possible OCIs.

See Questions 6 and 23.

27 4/8/2026 OCI - Duration and Post-Performance Restrictions

OCI

Clarification: The OCI language appears to extend restrictions for 12 months after the end of this contract. Please clarify (a) whether the 12 month post performance period is intended to apply to all DHMS related work and all agency partners, or only to specific types of future acquisitions where unequal access to information or biased ground rules may exist, and (b) whether the Government anticipates considering contractor proposed mitigation plans (e.g., firewalls) instead of categorical prohibitions.

Would the Government consider removing the duration language at the IDIQ level and instead potentially inserting at the task order level. At the task order level the government will have a clear understanding of the scope of work and will be able to assess possible OCIs.

See Questions 6 and 23.

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

28 4/8/2026 Warranty /

DHMS

related Work Restrictions

Clarification: The warranty language appears to imply that the contractor may be unable to provide “DHMS related” work to other Government agencies. Please clarify (a) whether this warranty language is intended to function as an additional OCI type restriction, and (b) whether it applies only to work that directly involves DHMSM systems or non public DHMS information, or more broadly to any health IT, telehealth, or PMO work at other agencies.

Clarifying the intent and scope of the warranty language as it relates to “DHMS related” work will help offerors avoid over interpreting the clause as a bar on unrelated health IT or PMO work (e.g., at VA or Coast Guard) and will enable accurate OCI planning.

Would the Government consider removing this language at the IDIQ level and instead potentially inserting at the task order level. At the task order level the government will have a clear understanding of the scope of work and will be able to assess possible OCIs.

See Questions 6 and 23.

29 4/8/2026 OCI - Portfolio Definition

OCI

Clarification: The RFP states that the DHMSM portfolio extends beyond MHS GENESIS to a broader set of solutions, including telehealth, population health analytics, and a user facing patient portal, managed by the DHMSM PMO. For OCI purposes, please confirm whether the “DHMSM portfolio” (as described) is the full boundary of work considered “DHMS related,” or whether other DHMS or DHA health IT programs outside this description are also included.

Confirming whether the DHMSM portfolio description defines the full scope of

“DHMS

related” work for OCI purposes will help offerors map which existing and future contracts (including VA and other partner agency telehealth/health IT work) may be affected and design appropriate mitigation.

See Questions 6 and 23 regarding OCI. No the DoD Healthcare Management System Modernization (DHMSM) portfolio description does not define the full scope of work for the Program Executive Office - Defense Healthcare Management Systems (PEO DHMS) Deployment Solutions requirement. See PWS Section 2, Purpose and Scope for more information.

30 4/8/2026 SF-1449 Block 10

vs. §52.212-1 1.0

The SF-1449 cover page (Block 10) reflects a Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) set-aside indicator, while §52.212-1 paragraph 1.0 (Solicitation Information) states this solicitation seeks "full and open competitive offers" and that the Government intends to award to all qualifying offerors under 10 U.S.C. 3206(c) / RFO 15.104(b)(1)(ii). Please confirm the actual competitive posture of this solicitation.

Suggested clarification: Confirm in writing whether this acquisition is (a) full and open,

(b) a WOSB set-aside, or (c) some other restricted competition, and amend the SF-1449 if needed to remove ambiguity.

In accordance with 52.212-1, paragraph 1.0 "this solicitation seeks full and open competition." The SF-1449 is a standard form, and the box for Women-Owned Small Business is not checked.

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

31 4/8/2026 Addendum 1 — OCI Addendum 1 - OCI; opening paragraph and §VII

Addendum 1 states the contractor will be ineligible to perform on future contracts with "our agency partners or subordinate organizations" for the duration of the contract plus 12 months. Please publish a definitive list of agencies and program offices covered, and confirm whether the Department of Veterans Affairs, the United States Coast Guard, the Federal Electronic Health Record Modernization (FEHRM) office, and other federal partners referenced in the PWS Background section are within scope. Additionally, please confirm whether the disclosure requirement in Section VII applies only to awardees, or also to subcontractors and team members at any tier.

Suggested clarification: Provide a definitive scoped list of agencies and programs covered by the Addendum 1 exclusion, and clarify the tier at which the disclosure requirement applies.

See Questions 6 and 23.

32 4/8/2026 52.212-2 1.0; Factor 1 — Challenge Scenario

Section 52.212-2 paragraph 1.0 states that an offeror receiving an Acceptable rating in either Challenge Scenario 1a or 1b (or both) will remain eligible for award, and that the Challenge Scenario evaluation "does not restrict task order competition eligibility."

Please confirm that an offeror rated Acceptable on Scenario 1a only (Federal EHR / fixed facility) will be eligible to compete for task orders under the OpMed line of effort, and vice versa.

Suggested clarification: Confirm in writing that all awardees are eligible for all task orders within the IDIQ scope regardless of which Challenge Scenario(s) they passed.

52.212-2 Section 1.0 provides "All awardees under this solicitation will be eligible to compete for any task order issued within the scope of this resulting IDIQ contract. The Government does not intend to establish pools, channels, or scope-based limitations on task order competition based on the Challenge Scenario evaluation results." See Attachment 19, PEO DHMS Ordering Guide for more details.

33 4/8/2026 Solicitation §34–37; fair opportunity procedures

Please describe the fair opportunity procedures for task order competitions, including:

(a) the evaluation methodology (best value, LPTA, or other); (b) typical response timeframes for task order proposals; (c) whether any task orders may be issued on a sole-source or directed basis to specific awardees; and (d) whether task order evaluation criteria will differ from IDIQ-level evaluation criteria; (e) will any future task order be set aside (i.e. small business/ other set aside categories.

Suggested clarification: Publish the fair opportunity procedures or confirm they will be issued at first task order release.

See Attachment 19 PEO DHMS Ordering Guide for more details.

33a. The task order best value evaluation methodology can use either tradeoff or LPTA.

33b. Typical response timeframes for task order proposals will vary based on the unique requirements and mission need.

33c. Exception to fair opportunity must be justified in writing as specified in RFO 16.507- 6(d).

33d. Task order evaluation criteria will vary but at minimum will consider Price.

33e. The Government does not anticipate small business set asides at this time for task orders.

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

34 4/8/2026 52.212-1

4.0 Vol III Sec 4; FAR 9.6

Contractor Team Arrangements

Volume III, Section 4 requires offerors to submit executed teaming agreements with the IDIQ proposal. Please clarify whether the team members, subcontractors, and Contractor Team Arrangement partners identified at IDIQ submission are binding for the duration of the contract, or whether awardees may add, substitute, or remove team members and subcontractors at the task order level to align with the specific scope of each task order. Additionally, please confirm whether the addition of new team members at the task order level requires Contracting Officer consent or notification, and whether such additions are subject to a separate OCI review under Addendum 1.

Suggested clarification: Confirm that (a) IDIQ teaming arrangements are not binding at the task order level, (b) awardees may form new or modified teaming arrangements for individual task order proposals, and (c) the process and timeline for any required Government consent or OCI review at the task order level.

34a. Teaming agreements identified at IDIQ submission are not binding for the duration of the contract.

34b. Awardees may modify teams based on the needs of the business and/or task order proposals.

34c. OCI will be considered at the task order level and may vary by task order.

35 4/8/2026 PWS

§11; Place of Performance;

OCONUS

Can the Government provide: (a) a list of anticipated or representative OCONUS deployment locations; (b) the expected ratio of CONUS to OCONUS task orders; (c) typical deployment durations for OCONUS assignments; and (d) whether any locations are in designated hostile fire / imminent danger pay zones?

Suggested clarification: Publish anticipated OCONUS locations or representative scenarios so offerors can model travel, per diem, hazard pay, and SOFA processing accurately.

Specificity such as this may vary by product and task order.

35a. Provided is a sample of the anticipated countries based on historical contracts for similar work: Australia, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guam (U.S. Territory), Guantanamo, Honduras, India, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Norway, Oman, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Somalia, Spain, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom.

35b. For OpMed deployments, we do expect there to be significantly more OCONUS locations than CONUS. For other anticipated product deployments, the Government anticipates a balanced split between CONUS and OCONUS.

35c. Specificity such as this may vary by product, task order, location, and Service.

35d. Some locations may be in or near active combat zones.

36 4/8/2026 Solicitation Contract Clauses, FAR Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Given that the solicitation includes FAR 52.219-9 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) and does not identify an Individual Subcontracting Plan (ISP) as a required proposal submittal, please clarify the Government’s expectations regarding subcontracting plan requirements.

Specifically, will an ISP be negotiated with the apparent awardee(s) at the time of IDIQ contract award, or will subcontracting plans be required at the individual Task Order level?

Small business participation will be considered at the task order level. See Question 7.

37 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 18 of 68

Can the Government clarify whether OCI concerns will be evaluated at the IDIQ level (including Contractor affiliates and teammates) or at the task order/individual contract level, which would allow for more precise identification and mitigation of potential conflicts (e.g., based on specific roles such as PMO vs. execution), rather than applying a blanket restriction across all DHMS-related work?

OCI is complex and requires consideration for multiple reasons at various time throughout an acquisition life-cycle. See RFO 9.504.

37a. As provided by 52.212-1 Offerors shall complete and submit Attachment 16, OCI Declaration and Disclosure, Notice of Organizational Conflict of Interest so the Government may perform an independent OCI assessment for the IDIQ competition.

37b. Specific to ADDENDUM 1 - Organizational Conflict of Interest see Question 23.

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

38 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 19 of 68

The Government’s acquisition strategy seeks to maximize competition while delivering an integrated model across technical integration, deployment, and end user services.

However, offerors appear to bear the burden of anticipating OCI implications across future, undefined acquisitions, which could limit competition and result in qualified contractors electing not to bid. Has the Government considered that this broad and restrictive OCI provision will narrow the competitive field and result in lost access to the best-qualified contractors?

See Questions 6, 23, and 37.

39 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 20 of 68 Given the limited definition of future contracts (e.g., Technical Integration, HCDS), how can industry assess the likelihood of any OCIs potentially arising from this deployment contract?

See Questions 6, 23, and 37.

40 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 21 of 68

In light of the critical dependency between technical integration and deployment activities, separating these functions across Contractors could introduce coordination risk, integration delays, or accountability gaps. In order to balance these potential performance risks against OCI concerns when determining whether to allow or restrict participation across these areas, will the Government permit mitigation plans to resolve any actual or perceived OCIs or waive an OCI IAW RFO 9.503 if determined to exist?

40a. As provided by 52.212-1 Offerors shall complete and submit Attachment 16, OCI Declaration and Disclosure, Notice of Organizational Conflict of Interest so the Government may perform an independent OCI assessment for the IDIQ competition.

Offerors who declares their Company, including any entity on the team, may have a potential OCI regarding solicitation HT003826RE001, as their Company has information that is likely relevant to the Government’s assessment of whether their Company has an OCI shall provided a disclosure statement attached to Attachment 16 which describes all relevant information bearing on this potential conflict under solicitation HT003826RE001.

See Attachment 16 footnote 4 for more information.

40b. Specific to ADDENDUM 1 - Organizational Conflict of Interest see Question 23.

41 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 22 of 68

The solicitation does not clearly define which specific activities or roles will trigger OCI restrictions or future ineligibility, and the current limitations on future participation may create a disincentive for offerors to fully engage across functional areas. Can the Government clarify the precise conditions under which participation in technical integration, product management, deployment, or governance functions would result in OCI restrictions or exclusion from future competitions, and how such determinations will be applied consistently across offerors, particularly given that these roles appear inherently intertwined under the proposed model?

See Questions 6, 23, 37, and 40.

42 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 23 of 68

The solicitation states that this contract “is likely to introduce biased ground rules, hinder objectivity, and create unequal access to information.” Can the Government identify which aspects of the PWS and the anticipated scope of work for this contract the Government has determined give rise to potential biased ground rules OCIs, where the scope of work does not appear to involve the contractor preparing specifications or work statements?

See Questions 6 and 23.

43 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 24 of 68

Unequal access to information OCIs oftentimes can be mitigated through the use of effective firewalls or other techniques. The OCI restrictions set forth in the solicitation appear to preemptively preclude the use of any mitigation strategies to address potential OCIs. Has the Government considered whether offerors should be permitted to propose appropriate OCI mitigation strategies and OCI mitigation plans in lieu of the solicitation’s preemptive restrictions?

See Questions 6 and 40.

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

44 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 25 of 68

The OCI provision in Addendum 1 states that Contractors will be ineligible to perform “on any future contracts or agreements with our agency partners or subordinate organizations.” Can the Government identify the “agency partners” and “subordinate organizations” that are covered by this restriction? Absent clarification, Contractors will be required to provide the OCI warranty without knowing which agency partners and organizations are covered.

See Questions 6 and 23.

45 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 26 of 68

DHMS is not included in the solicitation as an entity subject to the OCI restriction. The OCI provision in Addendum 1 renders Contractors ineligible to perform “on any future contracts or agreements with our agency partners or subordinate organizations.” Please clarify whether DHMS is intentionally excluded, or whether the Government intends for this restriction to apply to DHMS as well.

See Questions 6 and 23.

46 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 27 of 68

The OCI provision in Addendum 1 defines the term “contractor” to mean “the contractor, its subsidiaries and affiliates, subcontractors, vendors, consultants, joint ventures, contractor teaming arrangements, involving the contractor, and any entity with which the contractor may hereafter merge or affiliate and any other successor or assignee of the contractor.” Given the broad OCI restrictions and required OCI warranty, can the Government please clarify that, with respect to subcontractors, vendors, consultants, joint ventures, contractor teaming arrangements, the definition of “contractor” is limited to those subcontractors, vendors, consultants, joint ventures, contractor teaming arrangements in support of the contract? Without this clarification, the definition would sweep any and all subcontractors, vendors, consultants, joint ventures, contractor teaming arrangements of the Contractor, regardless of whether they have any role or involvement in this contract.

ADDENDUM 1 - Organizational Conflict of Interest is intended to flow down to "contractor" performing work on this contract. See Question 23, 37, and 40 for more information.

47 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 28 of 68

Addendum 1 requires the Contractor to warrant “that it will not perform DHMS related work for similar projects under other government contracts, as described above.” Can the Government please clarify what constitutes “DHMS related work” for purposes of this Solicitation? Does that definition extend to any contracts involving MHS GENESIS, or entities across the Military Health System? Can the Government also confirm that the reference to “government contracts” is limited to U.S. Government contracts and does not include other governments (i.e., state or local governments or other governments outside the U.S.)?

Typically this is limited to U.S. Government contracts; however, if a contract with another entity is likely relevant to the Government’s assessment for an OCI under this contract offerors are required to report this as provided in 52.212-1 and Attachment 16.

See Questions 23, 37, and 40 for more information.

48 4/8/2026 Solicitation Addendum 1 - OCI 29 of 68

Section V. Notification/Mitigation of Addendum 1 references “the clause at DHA.H.2 entitled ‘Mitigation of Organizational Conflicts of Interest,’” but the solicitation does not include a DHA.H.2 clause. Can the Government please clarify the reference to the “DHA.H.2” clause or provide a copy of the clause to offerors?

See Amendment 0002 when published; this reference will be deleted. See Questions 6 and 23.

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

49 4/8/2026 52.212-1 3.3 Title Page, 3.5 Indexing 59 of 68

Could the Government please confirm that the following approach to the title page and tab indexing requirements are correct?

Volume I Scenario 1a - Title page and detailed Table of Contents for the volume plus a tab index page before each Subfactor.

Volume I Scenario 1b - Title page and detailed Table of Contents for the volume plus a tab index page before each Subfactor.

Volume II - Title page and detailed Table of Contents for the volume. Since there are no Subfactors or required sections, no tab index pages required.

Volume III - Title page and detailed Table of Contents for the entire Volume III to be included in front of the Section 1: Cover Letter. Separate documents for Sections 2 through 5 with a Title page. Since there are no Subfactors or required sections, no tab index pages required.

As described the Volume approach is compliant with 52.212-1. Tab indexing could be used for Volume III if an offeror found benefit in organizing the respective sections.

50 4/9/2026 Addendum 1 — OCI Addendum 1 — OCI

RFP Reference: To mitigate potential conflicts of interest, the Contractor, by mutual agreement, will be ineligible to perform (as a contractor, subcontractor, or team member) on any future contracts or agreements with our agency partners or subordinate organizations for the duration of this contract and for twelve (12) months following its conclusion. This exclusion does not apply to follow-on actions that directly continue the effort under this contract.

To ensure offerors can fully evaluate the business and organizational impact of this provision, the Government is requested to clarify:

1. What specific organizations are encompassed by “agency partners” and “subordinate organizations”

2. Does this restriction apply to all work within DHA and affiliated organizations, or only to efforts directly related to DHMS programs?

3. How will this restriction be applied to existing contracts, ongoing work, and recompetes of existing work?

4. Will OCI determinations and enforcement be applied at the IDIQ level, task order level, or both?

See Questions 19 and 23.

51 4/9/2026 General

As an SBA 8(a) and HUBZone small business, we are interested in competing and would appreciate any additional context you can share regarding the anticipated task order types and the Government’s top operational priorities for successful deployments (for example: training and adoption measures, post-installation support expectations, and deployment schedule drivers).

The PEO DHMS Deployment Solutions resulting contracts will provide all services and materials necessary to support and execute the on-demand deployment of any product(s) within the DHMS portfolio and related or supporting components. Each task order will provide the end-to-end deployment needs for that unique task order requirement.

Operational priorities will likely vary task order to task order. See PWS, CDRLS, and QASP for more information.

Received Reference Section Page # Question Government's Response

Q&A LOG

Program Executive Office (PEO) Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) Deployment Solutions

HT003826RE001

Date: 10 April 2026

52 4/9/2026 52.212-2 If there is an opportunity for an optional vendor engagement or clarification on how the Government intends to evaluate the Challenge Scenario and Supply Chain Risk submissions, we would welcome that guidance as well.

Based on early mission needs, an industry day is not planned. In order to provide fair and equal treatment for all offerors direct one-on-one vendor engagement is not appropriate.

52a. Pursuant to 52.212-2, Section 2.0 Evaluation Factors, FACTOR 1: CHALLENGE SCENARIO, Table 4 a proposal is Acceptable when "The proposal addresses all required minimum elements of the challenge scenario and presents a feasible, coherent, and scalable approach. The Government has a reasonable expectation of successful performance. Any identified risks are manageable and do not indicate unsuccessful performance is likely. Offerors must receive at least an Acceptable rating in either 1a or 1b to be considered Acceptable for this factor." Further, "To be rated Acceptable, the offeror's proposal must meet the following minimum requirements for each applicable sub-factor."

52b. Pursuant to 52.212-2, Section 2.0 Evaluation Factors, FACTOR 2: SUPPLY CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN a proposal is Acceptable when the "Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation." The provision further states, "The Government will evaluate the offeror's approach to mitigating supply chain risk for information technology supporting a covered system. To be rated Acceptable the offeror's proposal must meet the following minimum requirements provide a feasible and coherent approach to identify, assess, and mitigate supply chain risks associated with hardware, software, and firmware, and confirm compliance with DFARS 252.239-7017, DFARS 252.239-7018, FAR 52.204-8 Deviation, 52.240-90, and 52.240-91 requirements."

Sheet1