W81K00-26-R-A051 Questions_14 Oct 2026_answered.pdf

Ground Ambulance services – Questions and Answers – W81K00-26-R-A051 14 October 2026

1. First Due ePCR System – PWS Sections 3.4 and 4.3

PWS Section 4.3 requires the contractor to furnish the First Due electronic Patient Care Record (ePCR) solution. However, we understand that the Army has separately pursued procurement of the First Due platform, including under Solicitation W81K0026RA052, as part of its efforts to standardize EMS documentation.

Under other Defense Health Agency healthcare staffing contracts, contractor-provided clinicians routinely utilize Government-furnished electronic medical record systems, including MHS GENESIS. These systems are maintained by the Government, while contractors remain responsible for ensuring their personnel are trained, properly credentialed, and compliant with all documentation requirements.

We believe a similar approach could benefit the Fort Polk ambulance requirement. Requiring each successive ambulance contractor to independently procure and maintain an ePCR solution could result in duplicative licensing, implementation expenses, additional transition costs, and unnecessary increases to the overall contract value.

Additionally, PWS Section 3.4 already establishes a framework for Government-furnished equipment and support services.

Question #1: Given the Army's existing investment in First Due, would the Government consider furnishing the required ePCR software, licensing, and system access through an existing Army procurement or licensing arrangement, rather than requiring the ambulance services contractor to independently purchase the system?

Can the Government also clarify whether First Due is currently licensed or available for use at Fort Polk, and whether the installation could obtain access through an existing Army agreement?

We believe this approach would promote consistency in EMS documentation, simplify future contract transitions, and potentially reduce costs to the Government while preserving all cybersecurity, patient privacy, and clinical documentation requirements.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE #1:

1. The contractor shall utilize the existing Government-provided paper charting forms and physical archive systems upon contract transition, at no software licensing cost to the contractor.

2. The contractor remains responsible for the accuracy, clinical completeness, physical security, and HIPAA-compliant handling of all paper PCRs.

3. If the Government elects to transition to an electronic PCR (such as First Due) during the period of performance, the software and access licenses will be provided as Government-Furnished Software (GFS). Any required staff training would be handled via a bilateral contract modification.

2. Medical Director – PWS Section 5.1.1 and 0.5 FTE Staffing Requirement

We would also respectfully request reconsideration of the Medical Director's required level of effort, currently identified as 0.5 FTE, or 960 hours annually.

We recognize that Louisiana EMS licensing requirements mandate physician medical oversight and that the Medical Director plays an important role in establishing protocols, overseeing clinical competency, ensuring patient care standards, and maintaining an effective quality assurance program.

However, Louisiana regulations permit ambulance service providers to contract for Medical Director services, and it is common EMS industry practice for qualified physicians to serve under a retainer or consulting arrangement rather than maintaining a fixed on-site schedule.

The responsibilities identified in PWS Section 5.1.1 are predominantly clinical oversight functions, many of which can be performed remotely through secure electronic record reviews, Microsoft Teams meetings, telephone consultation, and ongoing coordination with EMS leadership. When necessary, the Medical Director could also participate in scheduled on-site visits, training, or other activities requiring physical presence.

Under this approach, the contractor would maintain a qualified, Louisiana-licensed Medical Director under contract throughout the period of performance, ensuring continuous access to physician oversight and availability for consultation as required.

Rather than purchasing 960 physician labor hours annually, the Government could potentially replace that requirement with a substantially more economical fixed-fee retainer arrangement.

While the retainer and any necessary on-site services would still represent a cost, this approach could significantly reduce the overall Medical Director expense across the contract's full period of performance.

Importantly, the contractor would remain fully responsible for satisfying all Medical Director duties, maintaining Louisiana EMS licensing compliance, and ensuring patient safety and continuity of medical oversight.

Question #2: Would the Government consider allowing the Medical Director to serve under a fixed-fee retainer arrangement, providing remote clinical oversight and availability as needed, with scheduled on-site participation when necessary, in lieu of requiring a fixed 0.5 FTE/960 hours annually?

If so, would the Government consider revising the pricing schedule to permit a monthly fixed-fee Medical Director CLIN rather than requiring offerors to price 960 physician labor hours annually?

Alternatively, if the Government determines that 960 annual hours are necessary, could it identify the specific recurring duties, anticipated workload, and on-site activities that support this level of effort?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE #2:

1. Offerors must price this requirement as a fixed monthly rate. The contractor must secure a qualified, Louisiana-licensed Emergency Medicine physician via a dedicated consulting, retainer, or employment agreement.

2. Purely remote representation is not authorized. The 0.25 FTE floor ensures sufficient capacity for the required monthly hands-on clinical duties, on-site quality assurance audits, and live protocol drills.