DA01--VA-27-00015330 - Mission-Oriented Services for Application Integration and Capabilities (MOSAIC)

Request for Information

Request for information
Page 1 of 2 DESCRIPTION Request for Information Synopsis Mission-Oriented Services for Application Integration and Capabilities (MOSAIC) Enterprise Data Products, API Delivery, Data Access and Sharing 1.0 RFI Synopsis Narrative Background and Purpose The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Information & Technology (OIT), is conducting market research to inform a planned future acquisition known as Mission-Oriented Services for Application Integration and Capabilities (MOSAIC). MOSAIC is focused on positioning VA s authoritative data as a trustworthy, well-structured enterprise asset that can be reliably consumed in whatever form the mission requires. VA seeks to continuously improve this data so that it can be relied upon as genuinely authoritative and to make that same data available through the full range of access patterns the mission requires: real-time transactional APIs, bulk and analytical access suitable for data-lake and large-scale workloads, event-driven and streaming exchange, and the governed, well-described, AI-ready data products that models, agents, and automated features increasingly require. A single data domain today may be served reliably through one interface yet remain difficult to access in another or exposed broadly while portions of its underlying content are known to be incomplete or unreliable. The VA intends for MOSAIC to close these gaps so that the same trusted data can be accessed, reused, and acted upon across many mission and technology use cases. VA is using this RFI to better understand how this mission should evolve over the next five to ten years and what technical, operating, and acquisition decisions made today would best position VA for that future.
VA currently supports mission data and integration products that may form part of the initial MOSAIC baseline, including VA Profile, VADIR, HDR, existing API products, and related integration capabilities. The final inventory, transition boundaries, and allocation of work among MOSAIC, VA organizations, and other enterprise contracts have not been determined. MOSAIC will also operate in an environment that depends on enterprise data platforms, catalogs, identity services, infrastructure, security capabilities, and other agency- or vendor-managed services.
VA does not want this market research to assume that today's API, integration, architecture, delivery, or operating models should simply be carried forward. VA is specifically seeking industry's perspective on how AI agents, real-time data access, event-driven architecture, interoperability standards, reusable data products, automation, and other emerging technologies may change the way VA exposes, exchanges, governs, and operates mission data. VA also wants industry to identify capabilities, architecture patterns, tools, and operating practices that should be reduced, retired, consolidated, or replaced as the ecosystem evolves.
This RFI is intended to inform the MOSAIC Performance Work Statement (PWS), technical and operating model, transition approach, performance framework, commercial structure, acquisition strategy, and source-selection design. VA has not made final decisions regarding the future-state architecture, delivery model, single- versus multiple-award structure, contract type, ordering approach, period of performance, ceiling, pricing model, or final technical evaluation factors. Industry is encouraged to challenge VA's current assumptions and recommend alternatives supported by demonstrated operational, technical, and commercial experience.
Areas for Industry Perspective
VA is seeking forward-looking industry perspective on the following areas rather than validation of a predetermined solution:
The future state VA should pursue over the next five to ten years for positioning its authoritative data as a trustworthy, well-structured, multi-modal enterprise asset, including the capabilities and architectural principles that should define that target state. How AI agents, event-driven and real-time data patterns, interoperability standards, data products, automation, and emerging technologies may change the role of traditional APIs, point-to-point integrations, middleware, and manual integration services. Which current capabilities, technical patterns, tools, and operating practices VA should plan to eliminate, consolidate, or replace over the next five years, and what should replace them. The relative advantages of a traditional managed-services model versus a platform-first operating model built around standardized, reusable capabilities, self-service, automation, common engineering patterns, and measurable product or mission outcomes. How VA should sustain mission-critical services during modernization while improving availability, recovery, resilience, observability, security, maintainability, and interoperability. How VA can scale to future enterprise demand without relying primarily on open-ended labor or team augmentation, including ways to classify complexity, size work, and introduce new in-scope capabilities consistently. How commercial and performance models should evolve as automation increases, including how VA should measure value, validate productivity and cost reductions, and avoid incentives that reward activity or consumption rather than outcomes. How VA should preserve portability, Government access to technical assets and data, and the ability to transition products and services without dependence on proprietary contractor-controlled tooling.
Current Environment and Working Assumptions
For purposes of responding to this RFI, respondents may assume that MOSAIC could include some combination of continuous data-quality assessment and improvement, multi-modal data access and delivery (transactional, bulk/analytical, event-driven, and AI-ready data products), data sharing and integration, sustainment and operational support, modernization, data landscape assessment and roadmap planning, and transition activities for a defined initial product set, with the potential for additional in-scope enterprise demand over time. Respondents should not assume that current architecture, tools, licenses, organizational boundaries, or delivery practices will remain unchanged. Where a recommendation depends on a particular Government-furnished platform, commercial product, licensing model, authoritative data source, or separately managed enterprise service, identify that dependency and explain why it matters.
What VA Is Asking Industry to Address
VA requests candid, experience-based responses focused on the future state VA should pursue, and the practical decisions required to achieve it. Responses should distinguish between current demonstrated capabilities and future roadmap capabilities and should identify material assumptions, dependencies, risks, transition considerations, and conditions necessary for success. VA seeks recommendations that will improve the quality, reliability, and reusability of its authoritative data and make that data readily consumable through multiple access modes, including AI-enabled uses. Recommendations should also address how VA can simplify the environment, increase reuse and interoperability, reduce technical debt and avoidable operating costs, and improve resilience and security. VA is particularly interested in durable enterprise capabilities rather than approaches that preserve existing structures for their own sake.
This RFI is issued solely for information gathering and acquisition planning purposes and is intended to support the Department of Veterans Affairs' market research and ongoing refinement of requirements, acquisition strategy, contract scope, sequencing, and commercial structure. This RFI is not a solicitation and does not constitute an Invitation for Bid, Request for Task Execution Plan, Request for Quotation, or Request for Proposal. The Government is not obligated to issue a solicitation, award a contract, or otherwise procure any products or services based on information received in response to this RFI. No entitlement to payment or reimbursement of any direct or indirect costs associated with preparing or submitting a response to this RFI exists, and the Government will not pay for any information submitted. Respondents should clearly identify any proprietary, restricted, competition-sensitive, or otherwise protected information included in their submissions. Participation in this RFI is voluntary, and a decision not to respond will not preclude participation in any future solicitation, should one be issued. Information submitted in response to this RFI may be used by the Government for market research and acquisition planning purposes. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned.
Respondent Information and Business Profile
To support VA market research, socioeconomic analysis, and acquisition planning, respondents shall provide the following information: Legal business name and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Business size status under the identified NAICS code (currently anticipated as NAICS 541512). Socioeconomic status, including whether the respondent is an SBA-certified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), HUBZone Small Business, 8(a) Small Business, Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), or other Small Business concern. Current registration status in SAM.gov and SBA VetCert status, if applicable. Relevant Government-wide, multi-agency, or agency-specific contract vehicles through which the respondent could provide the required services. Whether the respondent anticipates performing as a prime contractor, subcontractor, or member of a contractor team arrangement. Estimated percentage of contract performance that would be performed directly by the respondent. If the acquisition were set aside for small business, SDVOSB, or VOSB participation, whether the respondent believes it can comply with applicable limitations on subcontracting requirements and any associated assumptions. Relevant experience operating, integrating, modernizing, or supporting enterprise-scale data, analytics, integration, interoperability, or related mission-critical environments of similar size, complexity, and risk. Recommended NAICS code(s) and Product Service Code(s) (PSC), including rationale if the respondent believes a different NAICS code or PSC would better describe the requirement. The Government will use this information to support market research, acquisition planning, analysis of available sources, assessment of small business participation opportunities, consideration of the Veterans First Contracting Program, and any resulting set-aside determinations. Responses will not be used for proposal evaluation purposes.
Questions
1. Future-State Enterprise Data Integration and Data-Sharing Ecosystem
What should VA's enterprise data environment look like in five to ten years so that its authoritative data is trustworthy, well-structured, and readily consumable across many modes of access including by AI. Describe the architecture, platforms or platform capabilities, data-product model, interoperability patterns, governance, operating practices, and enterprise services you believe should define the future environment. Identify which capabilities should be centralized or standardized enterprise-wide, which should remain distributed, and the most important architectural or organizational dependencies VA would need to resolve.
2. Emerging Technology and the Future Role of APIs and Integration Services
How will AI agents, agent-to-agent interaction, real-time data access, event-driven architecture, interoperability standards, semantic or metadata-driven integration, and other emerging technologies change VA's need for traditional APIs and integration services over the next five to ten years? Which integration patterns are likely to become more important, less important, or obsolete? Describe what VA should do now to avoid investing in architectures or services that are likely to become legacy during the life of the future contract.
3. Capability Rationalization What VA Should Stop Doing
Which existing capabilities, architecture patterns, middleware approaches, operating practices, or delivery models should VA plan to eliminate, consolidate, materially reduce, or replace over the next five years? For each major category you identify, describe what should replace it, the expected benefit, the transition risk, and any prerequisite VA must address first. Include your perspective on technical debt, point-to-point integration, duplicated data movement, product-specific interfaces, manual operational processes, poor or unreliable data quality and other practices that inhibit enterprise reuse or modernization.
4. Operating Model Managed Services versus Platform-First
Compare a traditional managed-services model for sustainment, development, and integration with a platform-first model that emphasizes standardized reusable capabilities, common engineering patterns, self-service, automation, and product or outcome accountability. What work is best suited to each model? Describe the operating model you would recommend for MOSAIC, including how product teams would consume shared capabilities, how responsibilities would be divided among VA, the MOSAIC contractor(s), and other enterprise providers, and how the model would avoid simply converting today's work into standing labor teams.
5. Transition, Modernization, and Enterprise Dependencies
Assuming an initial baseline may include products such as VA Profile, VADIR, HDR, existing API products, and related integration capabilities, what information would industry need to develop a credible transition and modernization approach? Describe how VA should maintain continuity while deciding which capabilities to sustain, modernize, re-platform, re-architect, consolidate, replace, or retire. Address source code, environments, interfaces, authoritative data sources, licenses, documentation, security artifacts, open defects, operational knowledge, and dependencies on separately managed enterprise platforms. Identify which transition activities should be sequenced versus performed in parallel and why. VA also expects recurring assessment of its data landscape and development of modernization roadmaps to inform investment decisions; describe how VA should scope this planning so that it produces actionable, vendor-neutral recommendations.
6. Scalable Enterprise Demand and Work Classification
How should VA accommodate future in-scope data-product, API, integration, and modernization demand that cannot all be named at solicitation? Recommend a repeatable way to classify or size future work that supports realistic scope, capacity, schedule, and price decisions. Identify the characteristics that should drive classification, such as interface complexity, transaction or event volume, data sensitivity, mission criticality, availability, recovery requirements, required access modes, data-quality uplift required, technical debt, platform dependencies, modernization effort, geographic resilience, and operational burden. Propose a concrete, repeatable classification or sizing scheme that VA could operationalize as orderable units of work. Explain how the model could support enterprise scale without becoming open-ended labor augmentation.
7. Performance, Reliability, and Measurable Value
What measures would best demonstrate that MOSAIC is improving VA's data-access and integration ecosystem rather than merely producing activity? Recommend measures for availability, recovery, reliability, security, interoperability, reuse, data quality and reliability, AI readiness of data, time-to-data or time-to-integration, delivery predictability, technical-debt reduction, product adoption, automation, cost efficiency, and mission or consumer outcomes. Identify measures that should be contract-level versus product- or work-level, and measures VA should avoid because they create counterproductive incentives. Describe how service failures and persistent underperformance should be addressed when outcomes depend on both the MOSAIC contractor and external enterprise services.
8. Security, Governance, Data Readiness, Portability, and Exit
What technical and contractual requirements should VA establish to support cybersecurity, privacy, data governance, records management, Section 508/accessibility, software supply-chain integrity, AI governance, and authorization readiness in a future enterprise data-integration environment? Describe how VA should preserve portability and prevent dependence on contractor-proprietary tools, including Government access to source code, APIs, schemas and data models, infrastructure/configuration as code, CI/CD pipelines, automated tests, monitoring configurations, architectural decision records, historical modernization data, AI assets developed for VA, and technical documentation needed for VA or a successor to operate the environment without disruption. Describe also how VA should ensure its authoritative data is high-quality and consumable across multiple access modes (transactional, bulk/analytical, event-driven, and AI-ready data products), and how it should prepare data to be reliably used by AI models and agents.
9. Commercial and Pricing Model, ROM, Automation Economics
What commercial and pricing model would best support the future operating model you recommend while accommodating a defined initial baseline and scalable future demand? Address, as applicable, firm-fixed-price managed services, platform or capability-based pricing, fixed-price or outcome-based modernization increments, consumption or transaction-based elements, standardized work packages, surge capacity, and mechanisms for adding, retiring, consolidating, modernizing, or materially reclassifying products. Explain how automation and AI productivity gains should be reflected in price over time and how AI model/token/credit consumption should be allocated, metered, and made transparent. Provide a five-year Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for your recommended model, with major assumptions separately identifying transition, baseline operations, modernization, platform/tooling, AI/automation consumption, and scalable future demand.
10. Acquisition Structure and Source-Selection Approach
Based on the future-state technical and operating model you recommend above, how should VA procure and evaluate MOSAIC? Address whether a single-award or multiple-award structure would best support technical coherence, innovation, accountability, competition, and transition, and whether task orders, optional work/CLIN structures, or another ordering mechanism would be most effective. VA is also interested in source-selection approaches that distinguish demonstrated delivery capability from proposal-writing quality. Describe whether and how a focused technical challenge, executable demonstration, oral presentation, objective qualification gates, or staged/down-select process could efficiently test the capabilities that matter most without creating unnecessary burden or restricting competition. Identify any significant acquisition, OCI, competition, or vendor-lock-in risks VA should consider, and any important issue not otherwise addressed in this RFI.
Submittal Information:
All responsible sources may submit a response in accordance with the information below. Responses are limited to 25 pages. The Government will not review material exceeding the 25-page limit. Do not include marketing materials. Generic capability statements will not be accepted or reviewed.
Responses are due no later than 10:00 a.m. ET, Friday, November 4, 2026, via email to Juan C Perez, Contract Specialist at juan.perez5@va.gov. Use MOSAIC RFI as the email subject line of your response. Clearly mark proprietary Information portions of your response. The total email size, including attachments, must not exceed 5 MB.