ACADM Phase 1 QA 082626.pdf

Reference Question Gov't Response

RFS Section 5.2 Data Rights, Intellectual Property, and Engine Provenance (propose data rights for trained model, tuned parameters, Government-derived datasets);

SOO Section 7 Deliverables (must NOT be marked proprietary; must carry Distribution

Statement C) vs. Section 6.2 Data Rights and Engine Provenance

DATA RIGHTS AND DELIVERABLE MARKING: Section 7 of the SOO states that deliverables must not be marked proprietary and must carry Distribution Statement C.

Section 5.2 of the RFS and Section 6.2 of the SOO invite vendors to propose data rights for the trained model, tuned model parameters, and Government-derived datasets. Are model artifacts, including trained models and tuned parameters, considered deliverables subject to the Section 7 marking requirement? If so, how does the

Government intend to reconcile that requirement with vendor-proposed data rights in those same artifacts?

Per RFS Section 5, 'Data Rights, Intellectual Property, and Engine Provenance,' vendors must describe the data rights proposed for all components of their solution. The Government will negotiate data rights as part of any resulting agreement. If there are concerns about sharing proprietary information with Government partners, vendors must follow the procedure in RFS Section 4, 'Addendum 2: Confidentiality.'

RFS Section 8 Award (Government may award multiple agreements); SOO Section 3.2(2) Interdependent Algorithm Learning (share learning insights across both vendors' platforms); SOO Section 8.3 (milestone payment schedule — no joint integration line);

SOO Section 7.4 (production invoiced per encounter)

SHARED OBJECTIVES (SOO SECTION 3.2): If separate vendors are selected for AC and ADM, Section 3.2 requires the vendors to implement interdependent machine learning algorithms that share learning insights across both platforms. Vendor is prepared to collaborate on unified dashboards, secure data exchange, joint integration plans, and testing protocols. What information does the Government expect to be shared between vendor platforms — outcome data and denial root-cause taxonomies, or model parameters, architecture, and training data? What protections would apply to each vendor's proprietary models? The milestone payment schedule at Section 8.3 does not identify a funding basis for the joint integration work required by Section 3.2. Should vendors include that effort in the Phase 2 cost breakdown?

Per RFS Section 5, 'Data Rights, Intellectual Property, and Engine Provenance,' vendors must describe the data rights proposed for all components of their solution. The Government will negotiate data rights as part of any resulting agreement. If there are concerns about sharing proprietary information with Government partners, vendors must follow the procedure in RFS Section 4, 'Addendum 2: Confidentiality.' Additional information regarding design will be determined at later stages upon receipt of vendor proposals.

19 Performance Measurement Is the stated volume of approximately 143,000 encounters daily the full enterprise in-scope volume, or the volume anticipated at the select military treatment facilities identified for Milestone 4 validation?

The volume of ~143K encounters daily (~4.35M monthly) represents the projected full enterprise-wide operational throughput objective (SOO Section 3.1, Page 1 ).

Milestone 4 validation will initially occur at "select military treatment facilities" (SOO Section 4.1, Page 3 ) representing a subset of the enterprise volume before full scaling.

22 Scope

RFS §3 / SOO §1 — The problem statement references aged A/R “across multiple systems.” Beyond MHS

GENESIS, which systems (e.g., legacy CHCS, TPOCS/ABACUS, DFAS financial systems) contain in-scope A/R records, and will the Government provide extracts from each for ingestion?

The RFS and SOO designate MHS GENESIS as the primary integration system (RFS Section 2; SOO Section 2.3 & 3.2). Although specific legacy systems are not named in the

RFS or SOO, the Government has the option of adding legacy system aged A/R. The Government will provide de-identified historical A/R test data and extracts in the sandbox environment (SOO Section 4.2, Page 4; Govt Response to Q3).

23 Scope

SOO §4.2 — Can the Government share the size and profile of the in-scope denied/aged A/R portfolio — total dollars, claim counts, aging distribution (30/60/90/120+), OHI payer mix, and number of MTFs in scope — to support an accurate Bill of Materials and Phase 2 pricing?

Per RFS Section 4, a high-level Bill of Materials is required with the white paper. Detailed cost and pricing information is not required for Phase 1. A 'cost breakdown of the prototype project' will be requested during Phase 2 from down-selected vendors, as stated in RFS Section 6. The referenced data will be provided to vendors selected to advance to later phases.

81 RFS 5.2, p. 5; Draft SOO 6.2, p. 5

Is a proprietary, commercially available autonomous-coding engine acceptable as the core of the prototype solution where the Offeror can integrate, maintain, patch, and retrain the product but the Government does not receive the vendor's proprietary source code or base-model weights?

Per RFS Section 5, 'Data Rights, Intellectual Property, and Engine Provenance,' vendors must describe the data rights proposed for all components of their solution. The Government will negotiate data rights as part of any resulting agreement. If there are concerns about sharing proprietary information with Government partners, vendors must follow the procedure in RFS Section 4, 'Addendum 2: Confidentiality.'

82 RFS 1, p. 1; Draft SOO 3.2, p. 2

The RFS permits AC to be proposed independently from ADM. For an AC-only prototype Offeror, what interoperability with a separately selected ADM solution must be demonstrated during the prototype? Is standards-based exchange of agreed data and outcomes sufficient, or does the Government expect direct sharing of models, training artifacts, or proprietary algorithmic components?

Per RFS Section 5, 'Data Rights, Intellectual Property, and Engine Provenance,' vendors must describe the data rights proposed for all components of their solution. The Government will negotiate data rights as part of any resulting agreement. If there are concerns about sharing proprietary information with Government partners, vendors must follow the procedure in RFS Section 4, 'Addendum 2: Confidentiality.'

102 Draft SOO 3.2, p. 2; RFS 1, p. 1

If AC and ADM are separately awarded, what level of technical coupling does the Government expect between the solutions for denial prevention and “interdependent algorithm learning”? Would standards-based exchange of coded-encounter information, denial outcomes, and model-derived insights satisfy this objective, or does DHA envision direct sharing of training datasets, features, model parameters, or proprietary AI components?

Per RFS Section 5, 'Data Rights, Intellectual Property, and Engine Provenance,' vendors must describe the data rights proposed for all components of their solution. The Government will negotiate data rights as part of any resulting agreement. If there are concerns about sharing proprietary information with Government partners, vendors must follow the procedure in RFS Section 4, 'Addendum 2: Confidentiality.'

Q&A: Autonomous Coding and Automated Appeals & Denials Management Request for Solutions

104 Draft SOO 4.2, p. 4

The Draft SOO references a “correlation match” against a human-audited sample for ADM performance. What specifically does the Government intend “correlation match” to measure (e.g., denial classification, root-cause determination, recoverability determination, recommended disposition, or another output), and how does DHA anticipate calculating that metric?

Per RFS Section 5, 'Data Rights, Intellectual Property, and Engine Provenance,' vendors must describe the data rights proposed for all components of their solution. The Government will negotiate data rights as part of any resulting agreement. If there are concerns about sharing proprietary information with Government partners, vendors must follow the procedure in RFS Section 4, 'Addendum 2: Confidentiality.'

108 RFS 5.2, p. 5; Draft SOO 6.2, p. 5

For custom software and AI/ML components developed during prototype performance, what data-rights and intellectual-property model does the Government anticipate?

Specifically, does DHA expect delivery of source code and Government Purpose Rights or Unlimited Rights in newly developed software, or may Offerors retain ownership of reusable platform/framework components while granting the Government negotiated rights to the DHA-specific application, configurations, models, and interfaces?

Per RFS Section 5, 'Data Rights, Intellectual Property, and Engine Provenance,' vendors must describe the data rights proposed for all components of their solution. The Government will negotiate data rights as part of any resulting agreement. If there are concerns about sharing proprietary information with Government partners, vendors must follow the procedure in RFS Section 4, 'Addendum 2: Confidentiality.'

126 Commercial Structure For production invoicing per final-coded encounter by complexity tier, will the

Government define the tier structure, or should vendors propose it? Is any minimum encounter volume anticipated following Milestone 4?

The Government would like a vendor proposed model for consideration.

135 N/A Are the 60 percent (Milestone 2) and 80 percent (Milestone 4) coverage thresholds fixed

Government requirements, or may vendors propose alternative thresholds with supporting rationale?

The Government would like a vendor proposed model for consideration.

137 N/A Is data retention duration (Section 5.1.3) a vendor-proposed parameter, or does DHA have a specific target retention window in mind?

The Government would like a vendor proposed model for consideration.

139 N/A What specific data rights does the Government intend to assert over the trained model, tuned parameters, and Government-derived datasets? Is Government Purpose Rights sufficient, or is unlimited rights anticipated?

Per RFS Section 5, 'Data Rights, Intellectual Property, and Engine Provenance,' vendors must describe the data rights proposed for all components of their solution. The Government will negotiate data rights as part of any resulting agreement. If there are concerns about sharing proprietary information with Government partners, vendors must follow the procedure in RFS Section 4, 'Addendum 2: Confidentiality.'

Q&A 08.20.26