Draft_Contract Strategy_22Dec2025.pdf

HCDS EHR

DRAFT Contract Strategy

22 Dec 2025

Program Executive Office Defense Healthcare Management Systems

The Government has developed a draft contract strategy to support the HCDS EHR follow-on effort, informed by market research and industry responses received following the November 5, 2025, Industry Day.

To ensure the strategy effectively addresses program requirements, the Government is sharing the draft with industry stakeholders to solicit additional feedback. This input will be instrumental in refining the strategy and optimizing its alignment with both specific requirements and overall program objectives.

BLUF

Technical Integration

Deployment

Oracle Health Millennium, Patient Accounting, Health Data Intelligence, Patient Portal

Program Office

Products Services

Human Center Design

Help Desk Tier 1/Tier 2

End User Experience (Training, Change Management, User Adoption)

Henry Schein Dentrix

Solventum Health Information Systems

Phillips eCare

Converge

Artera

Draft Contract Strategy

Product Management

Program Management Office Support

Contract or Agreement Summary Technical Integration Technical integration coordination, maintaining the program level documentation (e.g., ICDs, architecture artifacts, etc.), cybersecurity, design reviews, enterprise architecture, target state architecture, integration testing, etc. **This is System Integration** NOTE: Would not have any direct subcontracts with Product vendors.

Human Center Design Supporting the execution of the services impacting the end user experience (providers, patients, technicians, nurses, etc.) and support the maintenance of a capability delivery roadmap that includes but may not be limited to Help Desk Tier 1 and Tier 2, training, change management, user adoption, and deployment services ensuring the products, services and systems are intuitive, enjoyable, and meaningful to the end users.

NOTE: Would not have any direct subcontracts with Services vendors.

Product Management Responsible for guiding a product through its entire lifecycle from conception through eventual retirement. It involves balancing user needs, business objectives, and technical feasibility to create a successful product.

NOTE: Would not have any direct subcontracts Product or Service vendors.

4Draft Contract Strategy

Product Support

Turn-key technology solution for each product or set of products where the provider handles software access and licensing, infrastructure and platform services, maintenance and updates, monitoring and management, security and compliance, data management, and more to meet the agreed upon service levels agreements (SLAs).

5Draft Contract Strategy

Services Support

Contract or Agreement Summary Services – End User Experience (Training, Change Management and User Adoption)

Innovative approaches for new and existing end user community ensuring the HCDS EHR is meeting intended business outcomes and is intuitive, enjoyable, and meaningful to the end users. Maximize the value of the HCDS EHR by maximizing the user competency and system utilization.

Services – Help Desk (Tier 1/ Tier 2) Provides users with assistance, troubleshooting, and resolving HCDS EHR related issue, system problems, and general technology questions.

Services – Deployment The planning, execution, and delivery of the HCDS EHR ensuring a seamless system implementation with minimal business disruptions.

6Draft Contract Strategy

Questions

Questions for Industry

• What are the advantages or disadvantages of having Help Desk (Tier 1/ Tier 2) as part of a consolidated solution with End User Experience (Training, Change Management, and User Adoption)?

• For Tier 1/ Tier 2, what is the expectation for first call resolution and self-help portal?

• How does the self-help portal, help desk, and learning management system correlate and evolve over the next 5 years? Please include an impact of SaaS?

• What is the optimal tool responsibility and strategy for Tier 1/ Tier 2 help desk? Are there sufficient tools already available that are IL4 FedRamp compliant?

• What does the training contractor need from each solution provider in order to ensure training can be provided to end users (e.g., training environments, training materials, etc.)? Address how a production-like training environment can be obtained given different solutions may be hosted in different locations?

• How does industry train end users (new and existing) now?

• The Government can have “customized reports” developed that cross multiple solutions. Who should be responsible for this capability in the organizational and contract structure presented on slide 3?

• Where does data analytics fit in the organizational and contract structure presented on slide 3? Who should provide the data analytics tools based upon your recommendation?

Questions for Industry

• What is the split in testing responsibilities (e.g., system integration testing, end user testing, capacity testing, etc.) given the proposed organizational/ contract construct? Describe the efficiencies or inefficiencies gained or loss in this approach.

• Assuming the Government goes to a direct license maintenance or SaaS model, what recommendations can assist the Government with software/ subscription asset management?

• How are releases and patches for SaaS products (hosted in a Government cloud) tested, approved, and tracked with other Government entities?

• With Rhapsody as our “integration engine” who should be responsible for the system interfaces that are not covered via a commercial API?

• Cloud Transition is anticipated to be completed in 2027. What is the risk to the cloud migration success if the Government moves to this contractual construct by executing awards in or around July 2026?

• What are the advantages, disadvantages, and potential risks associated with awarding application contracts based on cloud hosting location? Specifically, what are the implications of consolidating multiple application contracts under a single cloud provider ecosystem?

• What are the advantages, disadvantages, and risks from the organizational/ contractual construct identified in slide 3? What changes would you recommend and what benefit would those changes bring to the Government to support cost efficiencies, performance and optimize competition?

Submissions

Please provide feedback to dha-dhms-cd@health.mil no later than Friday, Jan 9, 2026

Responses may be for some or all of the questions. Please ensure to include the question in the response.

Responses should be limited to only responding to the questions asked. Information provided to the Government that does not directly correlate to a question will not be reviewed by the Government.

The Government reserves the right to follow up directly with a respondent if additional clarification is needed to fully understand the response received.

Submission mailto:dha-dhms-cd@health.mil mailto:dha-dhms-cd@health.mil mailto:dha-dhms-cd@health.mil mailto:dha-dhms-cd@health.mil mailto:dha-dhms-cd@health.mil

Proprietary information may be submitted; however, RFI respondents are responsible for adequately marking proprietary, restricted or competition sensitive information contained in their response. If a submission is marked, it will be protected from disclosure outside of Government personnel, unless permission is granted for Government support contractors to view the material.

The following companies and individual employees are bound contractually by Organizational Conflict of Interest and disclosure clauses with respect to proprietary information, and they will take all reasonable action necessary to preclude unauthorized use or disclosure of an RFI respondent’s proprietary data. RFI responses MUST clearly state whether permission is granted allowing the support contractors identified below access to any proprietary information.

• Boston Consulting Group (BCG)• Swingtide• Andrew Morgan Consulting, LLC• Greenlight Analytic, LLC• Monterey Consultants, INC

This RFI is not a solicitation. This RFI is for planning purposes only. It does not constitute an RFP or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, the Government is not seeking proposals at this time and will not accept unsolicited proposals.

Respondents are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI. All costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the responding party’s expense.

Participation is not mandatory or required; participation or response to this RFI is not a prerequisite for any future procurement activities.

Submission (cont’d)