Inactive

14 April 2025 Update DHA Contracting Activity, on behalf of PEO DHMS, is issuing a 3rd Request For Information (RFI) for documentation services. Responses are restricted to only Small Businesses. The ... 14 April 2025 Update DHA Contracting Activity, on behalf of PEO DHMS, is issuing a 3rd Request For Information (RFI) for documentation services. Responses are restricted to only Small Businesses. The purpose of this notice is to identify potential sources, specifically small businesses, capable of providing the documentation services listed below. MHS GENESIS is a very large and complex system that completed deployment in March 2024. See attached charts to demonstrate the complexity of MHS GENESIS. Key technical documents record how the MHS GENESIS system is configured, operates, and interacts. Examples of technical documentation include, but are not limited to, the following: Interface Control Document System/ Subsystem Design Document System/ Subsystem Specification Business Process Workflow diagrams and Role Definition Data Management Plan Requirements Traceability Matrix Security Authorization Package (cybersecurity accreditation) Disaster Recovery Plan Architectural Artifacts The goal of this opportunity is to take the existing technical documentation, and work alongside the systems integrator to revise and update the existing technical documentation to make it consumable for a third party to be able to rely upon it in responding to a request for proposal (RFP) and, upon award, to maintaining MHS GENESIS. This requires the final technical documentation to be complete and accurate. The Government is seeking capability statements from small businesses. ****Capability Statement Request**** 1. Provide one example of a large commercial complex Information Technology (IT) system of systems where your company was responsible in the development/ maintenance of the technical documentation. As part of your response please: a. Describe the complexity of the IT system, as well as the characteristics that justify its classification as a system of systems. Use the attached charts and explain why the complexity is comparable to MHS GENESIS. b. Provide an overview of who the audience was for the technical documentation and how the technical documentation was developed and maintained. If applicable, identify the stated purpose or goal of the engagement. c. Describe the specific types of technical documentation that were developed and maintained. For example: i. Interface Control Document: Documents the data exchanged between two system or subsystem components. d. If applicable, describe how your company engaged with a third party to ensure the technical documentation was complete and accurate. e. Regardless of whether you engaged with a third party to produce the documentation, explain how your company was able to make the technical documentation consumable for a third party to understand them. 2. Provide recommendation(s) and details on additional technical documentation that makes it more comprehensive and consumable for third parties to have a better grasp of how best to provide technical support for the system of systems. Instructions for Submission Submit responses no later than April 28, 2025, to: Dha.ncr.peo-ipo.mbx.dhms-enablers@health.mil In the submission please include: Cover page: Company name, Cage Code, Unique Entity ID (UEI), point of contact, small business concern, and permission/ rejection of release or proprietary information to identified support contractors (see below) RFI Response: The Government anticipates that companies should be able to provide a complete response in no more than seven (7) pages in word or no more than fifteen (15) slides in power point. Font should be no smaller than 12-point. Submissions should clearly articulate the question being addressed. For ease of navigation a one (1) page table of contents may be added and will not count towards the page limitation. Submissions may be converted into a *.pdf but the same restrictions apply. Responses and comments may be utilized to develop a contracting strategy, including the scope of competition, and in the preparation of the description of services for a possible future solicitation. 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) •Andrew Morgan Consulting, LLC •Greenlight Analytic, LLC •iTero Group, LLC •Monterey Consulting, 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 February 2025 Update This is the 2nd RFI request for this opportunity and is restricted to only those companies who timely responded to the original RFI posted on Nov 19, 2024. DHA Contracting, on behalf of PEO DHMS, is seeking industry feedback on the below request. The Government is seeking industry feedback to address the following: 1. How can the Government leverage the use of artificial intelligence (AI), large language modules, and/or other technologies to provide secure, accessible, and accurate documentation for DHMSM Products, such as MHS GENESIS and other clinical systems? Please outline any previous experience(s) using these technologies and any assumptions/expectations of the government to execute a suggested best approach. 2. How would you ensure version control of documentation in a multi-product and multi-user environment? What processes would you implement, and at what frequency, to ensure the reliability and integrity of a documentation database? Describe instances where you have implemented your proposed method and results achieved. 3. How would you ensure document accuracy, clarity, and brevity? What specific KPIs are useful for measuring these outcomes? Specifically, how would you ensure the documentation team has the required input for accurate documentation? Describe your experience implementing your recommended measures on other documentation efforts. 4. How would you identify, evaluate, and monitor user satisfaction as a service level agreement criteria? Include potential metrics to measure and proposed methods for data collection. What challenges and results have you seen in measuring user satisfaction with documentation tools? Answers should be framed to account for key stakeholders including contributors, reviewers, and approvers. 5. Are there commercial solution(s) suited to support this effort? Please provide specifics and how it would fit into the overall approach. What experience does your firm have in implementing these systems, and if AI is integrated into these products, what specific functions does it serve (e.g., chatbot)? 6. Outside of AI/machine learning, what additional innovation opportunities exist to support MHS GENESIS documentation? Are there solutions that will allows users to search/engage with multiple AIs/Chatbots across multiple systems simultaneously and seamlessly? Describe your experience implementing these opportunities. 7. What is the scope and scale of documentation work your firm has completed, and has any of it been in a government context? Please provide examples of past performance to include contract numbers and SOWs if applicable. Additionally, provide lessons learned and best practices from your experience. Instructions for Submission Submit responses no later than March 5, 2025 at 5:00PM EST to: Dha.ncr.peo-ipo.mbx.dhms-enablers@health.mil In the submission please include: Cover page: Company name, Cage Code, Sam Unique Entity ID (UEI), point of contact, small business concern (if applicable), document names of any additional documents as part of this submission, and permission/ rejection of release or proprietary information to identified subcontractors (see below) RFI Response: For questions 1 through 7, limit response to no more than five (5) pages in word or 15 slides in power point. Font should be no smaller than 12 point. Submissions should clearly articulate the question being addressed. For ease of navigation a one (1) page table of contents may be added and will not count towards the page limitation. Submissions may be converted into a *.pdf but the same restrictions apply. Responses and comments may be utilized to develop a contracting strategy, including the scope of competition, and in the preparation of the description of services for a possible future solicitation. 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) •Andrew Morgan Consulting, LLC •Greenlight Analytic, LLC •Itero Group, LLC 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 November 2024 DHA Contracting, on behalf of PEO DHMS, is seeking industry feedback on the below request. MHS GENESIS was implemented as the first all-in-one record electronic health record (EHR) system for the entire Department of Defense. The MHS GENESIS solution is also used by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Reserve Components (RCs), the United States Military Entrance Processing Command (US MEPCOM), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) with deployment to the National Security Agency (NSA) in progress. MHS GENESIS plays a vital role in ensuring health, increasing readiness, and improving the safety of care. By standardizing clinical and business processes, MHS GENESIS enables beneficiaries to fully engage in their health care, and focuses on quality, safety, and patient outcomes that will ensure the Military Health System (MHS) can provide high-quality and reliable care globally. MHS GENESIS is comprised of inpatient and outpatient software solutions from Oracle Health (formerly Cerner), a dental solution from Henry Schein, an enterprise service bus, a suite of revenue cycle management capabilities, and interfaces to external systems that enhance capability delivery. MHS GENESIS is supported by uniquely configured and integrated third-party clinical content, functional baseline content (such as workflows, roles, training, and reports), local site “builds” (including formularies, device locations, and clinic information), solution-unique hardware, infrastructure, clinical application services, and turn-key operational management services in a contractor-provided “enclave.” The core of MHS GENESIS is interfaced with additional commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions, including virtual and behavioral health capabilities from Converge, Conversa, and Silvercloud, virtual health delivery from Phillips eCare, and population health management and analytics from HealtheIntent. MHS GENESIS provides patients with a single record of care. It integrates inpatient, outpatient, and dental records, and improves communication between patients, military hospitals and clinics, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and civilian health providers. Patients utilize a portal for seamless, secure messaging with providers and access to their medical history. MHS GENESIS is a system of systems, meaning that it contains interfaced EHR COTS product components from multiple different sources (e.g., Oracle Health, Henry Schein, etc.). MHS GENESIS has an enormous scale and level of complexity. The solution is comprised of 12 major subsystems, utilizes 81 DOD, joint, or commercial interfaces across more than 1,000 end points, and processes at least 20 million messages daily. MHS GENESIS has more than 975 workflows and more than 200 user roles, and it serves 194,000 users and 9.6 million beneficiaries across 137 commands globally. MHS GENESIS contains 255 TB of Millenium data growing at 100 TB annually. The DOD spent 7 years, 2017-2024, migrating data from legacy sites into MHS GENESIS. Additional data is stored across MHS GENESIS’s 12 major subsystem footprints. MHS GENESIS is comprised of ~26,000 hardware and software assets to deliver capabilities which need to be scanned every 48 hours for cyber vulnerabilities (and remediated as necessary). During deployment, each of the 26 waves averaged more than 7,500 end points. The MHS GENESIS system documentation is lacking with respect to the sustainment processes and procedures and internal interface configurations. Other technical documentation, such as architecture artifacts and system/sub-system design documents, are understandable to the current prime contractor and Government team but need to be revised so they are understandable to a third party. This would include documenting how the system is configured, and how the system is maintained and operated, and who is responsible for various functions. Because MHS GENESIS is in the process of migrating to the cloud, the documentation would need to be developed during the migration, completed within approximately six months after the cloud migration is complete, and the process would require cooperation with the current prime contractor. The final documentation deliverables should provide offerors with sufficient information to competitively respond to a full and open competition to support MHS GENESIS, including systems integration, hosting, and software licensing. The Government is seeking industry feedback to address the following: What is the best approach to creating and maintaining consistent and comprehensive documentation in an environment such as that of MHS GENESIS where there are multiple vendors (for example, multiple COTS product component vendors)? What, if any, risks or lessons learned should be taken into account when creating and maintaining system documentation in an environment such as MHS GENESIS? Where should lines of responsibility by drawn between software component vendors responsible for delivery as opposed to software component vendors responsible for documentation? With respect to coordinating the drafting of documentation? With respect to consolidating documentation? Any recommended incentive(s) or disincentive(s) to promote a cohesive and cooperative working relationship between and among a contractor engaged to develop documentation, the MHS GENESIS prime contractor, and the COTS product component vendors? What are important Service Level Agreement (SLA) measurements and key outcomes the Government should consider for the documentation services? How would you recommend measuring success for each recommended SLA and key outcome? How can innovation be used to support the creation and maintenance of technical documentation to support MHS GENESIS? Small Business Set Aside Is this a capability that Small Business or 8(a) could support as a set aside? Provide a reasoning for your response. Please advise what NAICS code and reasoning in accordance with FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting. Please also identify whether you qualify under such NAICS code as a small business or 8(a). Instructions for Submission Submit responses no later than December 12, 2024 at 12:00 PM eastern to: Dha.ncr.peo-ipo.mbx.dhms-enablers@health.mil In the submission please include: Cover page: Company name, Cage Code, Sam Unique Entity ID (UEI), point of contact, small business concern (if applicable), document names of any additional documents as part of this submission, and permission/ rejection of release or proprietary information to identified subcontractors (see below) RFI Response: For questions 1 through 6, limit response to no more than five (5) pages in word or 15 slides in power point. Font should be no smaller than 12 point. For questions 7 and 8 one (1) page in word or 2 slides in power point with font no smaller than 12 point may be submitted. Submissions should clearly articulate the question being addressed. For ease of navigation a one (1) page table of contents may be added and will not count towards the page limitation. Submissions may be converted into a *.pdf but the same restrictions apply. Capability Statement: A one page capability statement may be submitted as part of the supporting documentation. Responses and comments may be utilized to develop a contracting strategy, including the scope of competition, and in the preparation of the description of services for a possible future solicitation. 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) •Swing Tide •Andrew Morgan Consulting, LLC •Greenlight Analytic, LLC •Itero Group, LLC 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.