Questions and Answers for HT9425-25-R-0072_Advanced 3D Imaging system.pdf

# Question Answer

Can the Government clarify the specific criteria or thresholds that distinguish “Acceptable” from “Unacceptable” ratings under the Technical Approach and Past Performance evaluation factors? Are there examples or common deficiencies the evaluation team will reference?

Please refer to Addendum 52.212-1, section 3, quote for guidence.

Will the Government offer offerors an opportunity to address minor administrative or technical clarifications prior to final evaluation and award?

Please refer to Addendum 52.212-1, section 4 RFQ questions for guidence.

Will the Government provide debriefings to unsuccessful offerors, and will that include specific feedback on evaluated weaknesses or areas for improvement?

Please refer to 52.212-1 Instructions to offerors, section (l) for debrief guidence.

If only one offer is received, will the Government request additional cost or pricing data to determine price reasonableness, and what process will be followed to ensure transparency and fairness?

The Government will address it as needed

Will offerors be given the opportunity to present live demonstrations to differentiate functional, clinical, and workflow capabilities beyond the written submission?

No, live demonstrations will not be used as part of the evaluation.

Are there any additional formatting requirements for the Technical Approach or Project Plan beyond what is currently stated in the solicitation (e.g., required templates, prescribed structure, or content expectations)?

No, Please refer to Addendum 52.212-1, section 3, formating for guidence.

For the required Project Milestone Plan, what level of detail is expected regarding resource allocation, risk mitigation strategies, and internal dependencies?

Please refer to MECS #45 section ii.

If an offeror proposes a solution with additional capabilities or features beyond those listed in the MECs, will these enhancements be considered during the technical evaluation?

Proposal will be evaluated in LPTA basis. See FAR 52.212-2

Are there any restrictions or specific guidance on how offerors should allocate costs across the Contract Line Items (CLINs), particularly for components that may be designated as “Not Separately Priced” (NSP)?

See the Government proposed CLIN structure on Pg 3 & 4 of the solicitation. However, the contractor can propose a different CLIN structure.

Will the Government consider equitable price adjustments if there are material changes to the scope arising from unforeseen requirements or conditions during implementation?

Please refer to Clause (s) 52.212-1 Instrcutions to Offerors - Commerical Items section 1. This is a Firm-Fixed Price contract the no Changes/Adjustments will be authorized.

CLIN 1 appears to cover the total solution, while CLINs 2 and 3 separately represent installation/training and the software license. Could the Government clarify whether CLIN 1 is intended to be the sum of CLINs 2 and 3, or whether it covers additional scope?

CLIN 0011 is for the initial software deployment, CLIN 0002 is the installation and training, and Clin 0003 is the maintenace support for 5 year.

CLIN 1 authorizes multiple invoices. Could the Government elaborate on how it envisions invoicing to be structured (e.g., milestone-based - 80% upon delivery and 20% upon final acceptance - or another format)?

The unit of issue for CLIN 0001 is EA. The invoice should much the number of software delivered to the Government

MECS item #38 indicates that warranty and maintenance are included. Should the Government amend the SF1449 to explicitly include a pricing line for warranty and maintenance to ensure this component is evaluated within the LPTA framework?

CLIN 0003 on page 4 is the line item for warranty and maintence of the software. Please refer to Addendum 52.212-1, section 3, quote for guidence.

Are there any Government-preferred or mandated tools for vulnerability scanning, Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs), or submission of Risk Management Framework (RMF) d t ti ?

Please refer to MECS, Additional Required Information, number 49.

What is the formal process for requesting exceptions or waivers to cybersecurity policy, and can the Government provide historical context on how frequently such exceptions are granted or denied?

MECS # 56 has been removed.

The solicitation notes that a proposed solution must either have a current DHA enterprise-level ATO with at least five (5) years of remaining coverage or be capable of achieving such certification within the implementation timeline. Can the Government please confirm that both scenarios will be considered equally responsive, as long as the proposed solution meets all other technical and programmatic requirements?

The requirement is one or the other. Both will meet the MECS

Could the Government clarify what specific capabilities are expected under the MEC #8 requirement?

For example, does “supporting” refer to enabling secure data extraction or export for external ML/AI workflows?

The requirement has been removed.

Could the Government clarify whether “auto-tracking”, under MEC #11, refers to automatically calculating volumetric assessment across a dynamic set of series contained within a study?

Please see the revised MECS # 11

Could the Government clarify the intended clinical use cases under the MEC #35 requirement (e.g., orthopedic templating)? Additionally, is this functionality expected to be embedded within the proposed system, or is compatibility with existing PACS-native templating solutions sufficient?

The requirement has been removed.

The opening section of the MECs references implementation at a “government-hosted virtual environment not directly associated with any currently deployed PACS”, while also outlining a broader effort to consolidate local PACS into a Hub and Spoke enterprise model. Can the Government please clarify: (a)The intended purpose of the referenced virtual environment (e.g., ATO staging, testing, training)? (b) Whether the contractor is expected to deliver a single enterprise production system supporting all hubs, or implement separate instances at each of the 12 PACS hubs to address potential network reliability or latency concerns?

Please refer to updated MECS section i. and additional MECS # 47

The solicitation specifies the need to "utilize a Web version of the client to allow reconstructions without limitation of location with a thick client." Could the Government clarify whether remote-access solutions that deliver full client functionality (e.g., via secure RDP or virtualization technologies) are considered acceptable equivalents to a browser-based web client, provided they meet the same accessibility, performance, and security standards?

Please refer to MECS general information section i.

MECS item #41 lists concurrent user counts at each of the 12 hub sites, which appear to exceed the total of 65 concurrent users specified in CLIN 1 of the SF1449. Could the Government clarify whether the figures in MECS #41 represent total users or concurrent users per site, and confirm the intended number of licensed concurrent users per site and across the enterprise?

Page 3 CLIN 0001 includes 65 concurrent licenses. Refer to MECS #41regarding training requirements.

MECS #41 states that 450 trainees will be distributed across the 12 hub sites. Could the Government provide a breakdown of user roles (e.g., Radiologists, Technologists, Providers/Clinicians, Support Staff)? We assume a unified training curriculum is desired, but would appreciate clarification to ensure content aligns with the needs of all user types.

Refer to the revised MECS #41.

Does the Government currently utilize (or anticipate procuring) imaging modalities that generate 1K imaging datasets? Understanding this will help us ensure that performance benchmarks and infrastructure planning are aligned with expected workloads.

Please refer to MECS general information section v..

Could the Government clarify whether the intent of this procurement is to support radiology workflows exclusively, or if it is also expected to serve cardiology and other advanced imaging specialties?

Please refer to MECS item v.

Is it envisioned that the Government will designate a single authorized Point of Contact (POC) or Project Manager to coordinate directly with the vendor’s Project Manager throughout the

Yes, there will be a single POC for the project implementation.

The RFQ references a potential future transition to an enterprise PACS. Could the Government provide the anticipated timeline and the project management framework for this transition? This information is important for resource planning and to ensure alignment with the proposed

The MECS makes no mention any future PACS. Please refer to MECS general information sections ii.

MECS item #51 states that the contractor shall validate that the configuration is correct and working.

Could the Government clarify whether a formal certification or attestation (e.g., NRI) is expected?

Additionally, does this milestone serve as the official trigger for the warranty period to commence?

Please see the revised MECS # 51

Questions and Answers to Solicitation HT9425-25-R-0072

Is it expected that the Government will conduct functional acceptance testing on-site at each of the 12 hub locations? Could the Government elaborate on the intended concept of operations for acceptance testing, including who will participate and what criteria will be applied?

Please see the additional MECS # 66.

We understand that the Government cannot guarantee a Business-to-Business (B2B) connection.

However, if the contractor can meet all security and technical requirements, would the Government consider permitting B2B access as part of the approved architecture?

Please refer to updated MECS section 65.

MECS item #47 states that “the contractor shall provide all the following,” but no specific list appears to follow. Could the Government clarify what “all the following” refers to?

MECS # 47 has been removed and replace with a different requirement.

Could the Government please confirm that the signed SF 1449 form and the required Representations and Certifications are excluded from the stated page limit for proposal submissions?

Please refer to Addendum 52.212-1, page limit section.

Can the Government confirm whether the proposed solution is required to operate in a multi-patient-domain environment, where different HIS systems may issue unique patient MRNs? If so, are there specific expectations regarding patient identity reconciliation or cross-domain referencing

Please refer to MECS # 67

There was no mention of repurposing existing licenses to meet the required CCU count. Is it the Government’s position that respondents can use existing licenses and provide the delta amount of CCUs?

Refer to page 3 CLIN 0001 includes 65 concurrent licenses. Vendor proposal must include 65 concurrent licenses

If existing licenses are to be repurposed, will standing SMAs with the vendors that sold the licenses originally be canceled and need to be accounted for in the new proposal SMA?

There is no reference licenses are to be repurposed.Please refer to MECS #38 for SMA requirements.

Does the Government prefer to deploy in the DCOPS environment via central core with failover at hubs?

The contractor shall provide the system design. The enterprise solution will be implemented within a government hosted environment.

Can you please provide a bit more detail about your needs and the facility that would be using this system? I need the address to link it in our backend.

The PACS locations from which the users will be working from are listed in MECS #41. Please refer to MECS General information section vi.

For Large Vessel Occlusion (LVO) deployment, we will need to know this information: Study volume and will users from all 12 facilities be accessing AI solution? Will AI also be deployed in hub and spoke setup?

MECS #34 has been removed

On Page 19 of the solicitation, training requirements are listed in document. Is it accurate that the certificates are required to setup remote access to servers however, for on-site installations government issued ID is only requirement and the implementation engineer will be escorted to data center by DoD personnel. Can you please confirm what is the requirement for the engineer to go on-site for installations?

Please refer to MECS 58 to 62 for DHA Information system access.

Can you provide clarification if the software must be accessed using both server-based client and web version of client. Our system can be accessed anywhere but it not a web client.

Please refer to MECS General information section iv.

Sheet1