From: Windom, John H.

Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:47 PM
To: Blackburn, Scott R. Bowman, Thomas
Cc: Zenooz, Ashwini; Short, John (VACO)
Subject: RE: Re: VA EHR

Mr. Blackburn,

Not sure where Mr. Sherman is going with his comments but our language in the contract is
consistent with the requirements or our Clinicians various external reviews and the Mitre
report. Mr. Sherman is seeking specificity in the interoperability realm that simply does not
exist today and is evolving even as I type. We have provisions in the EHR contract to insert
technology as we, the VA, as well as to incorporate evolving technology and standards. The
DVP acquisition is our bridge to the use of APIs (gateways), FHIR, etc. We have modified our
interoperability language {below} based on the Mitre and the many external reviews to give
us the utmost flexibility over the 10-year life of this contract. The Secretary personally
halted the recent phone call to stop Marc Sherman, et. Al?s parade of national interoperability
objectives as not feasible at this juncture "anywhere,? but included as part of our overall
interoperability strategy that includes the DVP We are committed to
establishing the interoperability test bed/sandbox at IOC to solidify our interoperability
objectives prior to full deployment to the enterprise. In addition, I believe Mr. Sherman
meant to highlight section 5.5.1 which speaks to the data domains that were called into
question and their inclusion in the contract. They are clearly in the contract as captured
below. Mr. Sherman does not understand the culture of VA or the federal government. We
have an incrementalf'iterative change management strategy that will culminate in a successful
EHR Modernization effort. He appears to be more of a ?big bang" theory guy. The problem
is, we must continue to deliver uninterrupted and quality care to our Veterans during the
transformation within the parameters of the law and other regulationsf'policies 
cybersecurity, cloud, etc.] bounding our integrationf'implementation strategies. Our existing
language is sound and appropriately balances change management risks, future insertion of
technology, innovation opportunities, standards development, etc. without artificially
inflating the cost of the contract through the incorporation of excess specificity that never
materializes in practice. Through the Initial Operating Capabilities llOC) process and the
judicious issuance of task orders, we will have the ability to change course direction as
appropriate without excess risk to the taxpayers or our overall success. Mr. Sherman
continues to fail to recognize that it is Program Management Oversight (PING) and VA
commitment to change management that will drive our success in these areas, not more
words in the contract.

Wr.

John

IDIQ PWS 5.5.1: Workflow Development and Normalization:

j] The Contractor shall enable configuration of the application that supports external community
data without requiring the clinician to go to special screens to see and use reconciled external

000087