A Q&A with Ian Graham, General Manager of Federal Health, Unissant
As HHS and NIH continue to evolve acquisition strategies under Presidential efficiency mandates, Federal Health leaders are under pressure to streamline operations, budgets, and technology. At the same time, NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s Unified Strategy is pushing for data-driven, AI-enabled science that translates to outcomes faster.
This creates a delicate balancing act for NIH Institute and Center (IC) leaders who urgently need access to advanced technology to drive their research, but cannot afford to get bogged down in unnecessarily slow procurement cycles. Supporting mission objectives therefore requires a procurement process that can meet mission speed. Ultimately, agency stakeholders are left evaluating how to gain efficiencies while supporting their specialized technology needs of biomedical research, clinical programs, data modernization, and scientific collaboration. They need a more nuanced path for complex scientific data environments, AI-enabled workflows, grants systems, clinical research tools, and reporting than the agency might use for standard office software through a government-wide GWAC.
OrangeSlices spoke with Ian Graham, General Manager of Federal Health at Unissant, about what NIH leaders and industry partners should be watching as acquisition models continue to shift.
To make the NIH Director’s vision a reality, Graham makes the point that NIH ICs need fast-tracked acquisition pathways and approaches that account for their domain-specific environments being supported. As a prime on the NCI IT BPA (now officially called the NIH IT BPA), Graham has a unique line of sight into exactly how these broad procurement shifts and therefore, how specialized acquisition pathways, positively impact NIH procurements.
1. What acquisition shift should NIH stakeholders be watching right now?
NIH stakeholders should undoubtedly be watching the continued movement toward greater acquisition centralization across HHS and NIH.
As many of my colleagues and I have done, NIH’s stakeholders are joining the calls hosted by GSA, HHS OMAS (Office of Mission Acquisition Solutions), and NIH OALM (Office of Acquisition and Logistics Management) to try to navigate these very important changes, but it is certainly a lot to take in and to fully grasp. Just the other day, I sat in on an HHS and NIH acquisition webinar, and looking at the participant list, there were literally hundreds of NIH personnel dialed in. Everyone was there trying to understand how to navigate the exact operational differences between GSA, HHS OMAS, and NIH OALM.
The reality is that HHS is making a strong effort to consolidate disparate acquisition systems. That movement makes sense for some foundational or some commodity IT, things consumed broadly across the NIH ICs and other HHS agencies like standard email systems, collaboration tools, and laptop purchases. This is no secret as HHS OMAS has been clearly defining this, but this shift is currently in motion and is rapidly moving from planning into execution. The organizations that navigate this transition successfully will be those that realize where centralization delivers value versus where mission-specific, specialized acquisition paths are imperative. This distinction matters significantly.
To achieve the NIH Director’s goal of data-driven, outcome-focused science, we cannot treat an oncology data environment, for example, the same way we treat a standard enterprise email migration. Scientific, clinical, and NIH facilities IT are treated differently because those environments remain closely tied to IC missions and have minimal or no effect on other organizations.
As mentioned, without access to NIH-specific acquisition options for complex data and scientific research requirements, there is a risk of the speed of science outpacing the speed of easily accessible procurement vehicles. The IC stakeholders that leverage specialized vehicles already built for the unique requirements of NIH’s mission will be the ones who understand where centralization applies and where mission-specific acquisition paths are the better strategies connected to mission execution.
2. How should NIH leaders think about the difference between common services and mission-specific scientific IT?
To get this right, we need to look at the decision model foundation. I think a common service is a solution, platform, or product that can be standardized across organizations. Email, commodity cloud services, and enterprise collaboration tool licenses are good examples of common tools and services. Broadly stated, they are assets or services consumed universally across the entire agency, multiple agencies, or department.
Mission-specific scientific IT is entirely different. It is shaped by the research mission itself. At NIH, this includes research portfolio systems, clinical trial platforms, scientific data ecosystems, biomedical dashboards, grants-related workflows, AI-enabled analysis tools, and systems that help researchers access, organize, and use information more efficiently. Systems such as NCI’s Cancer Research Data Commons (CRDC) or NHLBI’s BioData Catalyst (BDC) platform are good examples of this. The requirements might look like standard software development, cloud migration, or database engineering on paper, but the actual requirements are bound to domain-specific scientific contexts of the IC mission and would be good fits for the NIH OALM office to procure.
An advanced clinical trial platform, an automated biomedical data pipeline, or an AI-driven workflow requires more than a commodity acquisition framework. It needs to reflect how researchers work, how data moves, how decisions are made, and how the ICs measure outcomes. That is where mission knowledge matters. Technology delivery improves when the partner understands the scientific and operational environment surrounding the requirement. NIH can achieve full alignment with EO 14240 and IT Centralization via agency contract vehicles like the NIH IT BPA. As an existing agency-wide vehicle tailored to NIH’s mission and governance, the BPA fulfills NIH OALM procurement consolidation goals while preserving critical research specialization and avoiding the commodity focus of GSA contracts.
3. What risks emerge when mission context is missing from the acquisition strategy?
The biggest risk is that the requirement becomes too generic. When a scientific IT requirement is described only as software development, cloud support, application operations, or data services, the acquisition strategy may miss the reason the work matters. The science may suffer and a generic requirement causes an undue burden on the acquisition staff. Contracting officers end up with generic proposals lacking domain expertise and leave the door open for technical misunderstandings.
In the Federal Health mission, time matters. Researchers, program officials, and agency leaders need systems that support better decisions, faster access to accurate information, and reliable operations.
Unissant has seen this across Federal health programs. Successful modernization depends on the connection between mission understanding, data, governance, and technology delivery. In one NIH environment, for example, our modernization work consolidated 15 applications and workflows into a single source of truth to improve access to research and operational data. We were able to hit the ground running, improving real-time access to vital research and operational data while avoiding the typical administrative friction.
4. What questions should NIH leaders ask before choosing an acquisition path?
NIH is already heading down this path. The starting point should always be the mission outcome the requirement is intended to support. From there, NIH leaders should consider the nature of the work and the environment in which it will be delivered. For example, is the requirement tied to a specific research program, clinical workflow, scientific data ecosystem, or mission data set? Does successful delivery depend on familiarity with NIH systems, security processes, research operations, or stakeholder workflows?
Leaders should also consider whether the requirement is likely to evolve as scientific priorities, funding models, or policies change, and whether it involves sensitive data, regulated processes, or mission-critical reporting. The central question is whether the acquisition approach will help scientists achieve better outcomes faster while reducing onboarding risk, preserving institutional knowledge, and giving the program access to partners who understand the mission context.
The goal is to make the acquisition path fit the mission. Some requirements align well with broad enterprise vehicles, but as soon as you start filling in the answers to the questions above, the benefits should be clear for pursuing a path built around NIH-specific mission context, established operating knowledge, and scientific IT delivery.
The NIH IT BPA is a positive option for that second category of work. With a $1.7 billion ceiling that has ample space remaining and availability across the entire NIH, the BPA gives ICs an established path for mission-focused technology requirements, including modernization, data, AI, cloud, cybersecurity, application development, and research platform support.
5. What should industry partners and NIH stakeholders watch over the next year?
The next year will test how NIH balances acquisition transformation, budget pressure, workforce changes, and rising expectations around data, AI, transparency, and measurable outcomes. At the same time, ICs still need to deliver on research missions with specific scientific, operational, and public health requirements.
AI will play a major role, and AI creates value when it is tied to mission workflows, governed data, and decisions users need to make. The same is true for cloud, data modernization, cybersecurity, and digital services. These capabilities need to support mission workflows, operational decisions, and measurable outcomes.
For industry partners, the message is straightforward: bring more than technical capacity. Bring mission understanding. Understand the acquisition environment. Understand the NIH research context. Help agencies define requirements in ways that support the work their teams need to do.
For NIH stakeholders, acquisition strategy can help protect mission focus, improve speed, and make modernization more practical. Existing NIH-specific vehicles such as IDIQs and BPAs should be part of that conversation, particularly when requirements are tied to scientific platforms, data environments, research operations, and cross-institute mission needs.
A reuse-first mindset of existing acquisition vehicles also matters. When an existing NIH vehicle can support acquisitions for services that support research-driven work or mission support work, it can help agencies avoid unnecessary acquisition friction, indecisions, and delays.
The NIH IT BPA offers a practical alternative for these requirements because it is already available across NIH with a high dollar ceiling for any new task order that starts before November 2027, designed for mission-focused IT work, and supported by a focused group of contractors with NIH experience. For ICs navigating acquisition change, that combination can help move the right work forward with less ramp-up and greater continuity.
When acquisition decisions reflect the realities of scientific IT, agencies are better positioned to support researchers, improve access to data, strengthen operations, and advance NIH’s research and public health mission.
To learn more about Unissant’s Federal Health work and the NIH IT BPA, visit https://www.unissant.us/.
About Ian Graham
With over 25 years of experience leading federal IT portfolios, Ian serves as General Manager overseeing Unissant’s work in the health and federal civilian arenas. He spearheads both program delivery and account growth with a focus on enabling missions that advance health outcomes for our nation.
