12-3198-25-R-0002 A0004 Questions and Responses.pdf

A0004, 12-3198-25-R-0002: Questions and Responses

Ques.

ATCH. SECT.

PAGE#

RFP/PWS

Language

Questions Answers

1 RFP N/A N/A I wanted to confirm if the project mentioned above is considered as a potential new requirement or is there an incumbent contract currently performing these services? If there are incumbent vendor(s), would you be able to provide the contract details (such as:

Vendor Name, Contract Number, Award and end dates, total contract value)?

Similar services have been provided by the incumbent Mathematica, Inc.

For further information, submit request for a Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA).

2 RFP N/A N/A Is there any incumbent/recompete or this is a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

See response to Question 1

3 RFP Pg. 45 "The price proposal shall be submitted to the Government in the original Microsoft Excel format. PDF versions of the pricing information are not acceptable."

Can the contractor provide the narrative portions of the business/pricing proposal in PDF format, while still providing Attachment 9a and Attachment 9b in Microsoft Excel format?

Yes

4 PWS-

Att.10b

N/A N/A Will the Awardee have access to the current microsimulation models FNS- EAR has been using?

The incumbent contract contains the Federal Acquisitions Regulation Clause at 52.227-14, “Rights in Data- General.” The Government expects to exercise its rights under that clause to support execution of the new contract.

5 PWS-

Att.10b

Pg. 21 N/A Can you share the expected date for first deliverables?

Deliverables associated with the ad-hoc/quick response requests under Task 1.1 must be delivered within 2 or 3 business days of FNS request, per the Schedule of Deliverables.

6 PWS-

Att.10b

Pg.20 N/A Is the first monthly report in Task 10 due by September 10th?

Contractor shall prepare and submit monthly progress reports to FNS in an FNS-approved format by the 10th of each month, beginning 1 month after award.

7 PWS-

Att.10b

N/A N/A Does the scope of work include an annual cost-benefit analysis of the recent modifications made to the SNAP program on the US and State economies?

FNS may request the cost impacts of SNAP policy reforms on an ad-hoc basis under subtask 1.1.

8 PWS-

Att.10b

N/A N/A Does the scope of work include scenario analysis for individual States since eligibility requirements, benefit levels, and work requirements can vary by State?

The microsimulation models and analytical methods must incorporate State-specific SNAP policy.

9 PWS-

Att.10b

N/A N/A Are the models hosted on a USDA portal or the Awardees?

The Awardee’s portal.

10 PWS-

Att.

10a, Att.10 b

Pg.2 “Assist with hosting and maintaining SNAP Quality Control (QC) data files and the web-based microsimulatio n models.”

The Contractor is expected to “Assist with hosting and maintaining SNAP Quality Control (QC) data files and the web-based microsimulation models.” What is the grace period for the Contractor to move existing models and data to a new web portal, if required?

The Contractor should include in the proposal the amount of time needed for this task.

11 PWS-

Att.

10a, Pg.4-

N/A Will the Contractor have access to the existing host portal until transferring

No, the awardee will not be able to access the current

Att.10 b models and data to a new host portal, if required?

Contractor’s host portal.

12 PWS-

Att.

10a, Att.10 b

Subta sk 1.1, Pg.2

“The Contractor shall assist with preparing up to 80 reform simulations, tabulations, or other related analyses. FNS will provide requests for such analyses in writing through the Contracting Officer Representative

(COR).”

Subtask 1-1 requires the Contractor to “assist with preparing up to 80 reform simulations, tabulations, or other related analyses”.

Are these number of simulations expected on a monthly basis, annual basis, or in response to a reformed budget such as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"?

It would be 80 reforms for the duration of the Task Period of Performance (one year).

13 PWS-

Att.

10a, Att.10 b

Sub-task 1.2, Pg.4

“Provide Improvements to the QC Data File and/or the QC Mini-Model on an As- Needed Basis”

Subtask 1.2 requires the Contractor to “Provide Improvements to the QC Data File and/or the QC Mini-Model on an As- Needed Basis”. Will the Contractor receive current QC Mini-Model, MATH SIPP+ model, and other extant databases that are currently used by FNS-EAR?

The incumbent contract contains the Federal Acquisitions Regulation Clause at 52.227-14, “Rights in Data- General.” The Government expects to exercise its rights under that clause to support execution of the new contract.

14 PWS-

Att.

10a, Att.10 b

Sub-task1.

2 and 1.3;

Pg. 4

N/A Is the up to four improvements/updates requests in Subtasks 1.2 and 1.3 within one year?

It is within the Task Period of Performance, (one year).

15 RFP N/A N/A Can you grant a one-week extension? An extension has been issued.

16 PWS-

Att.

10a, Att.10 b

Task 9, Pg.

18-19

N/A Regarding task 9, can you share a copy of previous “SNAP Participation Dynamics Report”?

The most recent version published in 2014 is available online at https://fns-prod.azureedge.u s/sites/default/file s/ops/Dynamics2 008-2012.pdf

17 RFP,

PWS-

Att.

10a, Att.10 b

RFP-

Pg.40 Evalu ation Facto r 1 Tab A– Techn ical Appro ach to

IDIQ

and

TO

(Attac hmen ts 10a and 10b)

“Offerors shall, also, include as appendices:

a) A draft deliverable schedule/timeli ne that shows how much time the Offeror believes it

If a)-m) are appendices, are they outside of the 30 pg. limit for Volume I: Technical Approach?

The appendices may be considered outside of the 30 page Technical Approach limitation.

would take to accomplish the required tasks (e.g., X weeks from contract award).In submitting the proposed approach to the technical requirements described in the PWS, Offerors shall consider each of the following and provide a detailed narrative that is clear and concise:b) Microsimulatio n model development, improvement, and maintenance methods. The Offeror demonstrates clear knowledge and understanding of developing and updating microsimulatio n models.

[a-m]”

18 RFP,

PWS-

Att.

10a, Att.10 b

RFP-

Pg.40 Evalu ation Facto r 1 Tab A– Techn

“The Offeror’s Technical Approach shall be presented in the following order, with subsections and parts.

Additional

The Technical Approach states that it “shall be presented in the following order, subsections and parts,” gives “additional guidance,” and then leads into subsections a)-m).

Is the Technical Approach meant to respond to a)-m) or is the Technical Approach meant to respond to Tasks 1-11 of the PWS?

The Technical Approach should respond to the Tasks in the PWS that consider b)-m). However, a) must be addressed in the Technical ical Appro ach to

IDIQ

and

TO

(Attac hmen ts 10a and 10b) guidance is as follows:

The Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative discussing the proposed process and procedures to plan and perform the work required to achieve all of the tasks specified in the

PWS.

The Offeror shall include a table of contents, cross referencing each PWS task to the applicable page number(s) within the proposal which addresses how the performance objectives shall be achieved”

What format should the Technical Approach take? A response to the PWS (in both Attachment 10a and 10b), with a)-m) as appendices outside of the page limit? Or should the response to the Technical Approach focus on a)-m), cross-referencing to the PWS?

Approach as an appendix.

19 RFP Pg.

40, Evalu ation Facto r 1 Tab A– Techn ical Appro ach to

IDIQ

and

d) Fortran and other programming languages. The Offeror demonstrates clear knowledge and understanding of Fortran programming language required to update the

We understand that Fortran is currently in use.

Is USDA interested in exploring modernization strategies to transition from Fortran to other programming languages to enhance SNAP microsimulation model development and take advantage of more modern technologies and capabilities?

USDA refers all Offerors back to the solicitation terms and conditions. If an alternate Offeror is being proposed, USDA may consider at time of evaluation if requirements are met in accordance with the solicitation

TO

(Attac hmen ts 10a and 10b) existing microsimulatio n models, and other programming languages including SAS, Stata, and R.

terms and conditions.

20 RFP Task 1.4, Host

SNAP

QC

Data

“Host the SNAP QC data and technical documentation on website”

In the pricing spreadsheet, we acknowledge the hosting line item for the website; how can we represent in the pricing spreadsheet any hosting cost for data management activities and other innovative model development?

What level of resources is USDA or the current contractor allocating towards Fortran programming vs. SAS, Stata, and R?

In accordance with the solicitation terms and conditions a detailed narrative regarding any pricing information may be provided for evaluation consideration.

21 RFP Pg.

35, E.5 Propo sal Instru ctions

Proposals Due:

All Offerors shall submit a proposal via email to both:electronic ally via email to both:

Carol.Evans@u sda.gov and Monifa.Colema n@usda.govwh ich will be considered if received by

10:00 AM,

Eastern Standard Time (EST) on August 14, 2025. The subject line shall read:

“Proposal-12- 3198-25-R- Microsimulatio n services”.

Will USDA extend the proposal due date to Thursday, 21 August 2025?

We want to ensure we provide the best response and have the time to incorporate answers to questions and the pricing spreadsheet modifications (Amendment 002).

An extension has been issued.

Within the e-mail body, the Offeror shall include a statement verifying that they are SAM Registered under NAICS

CODE: 541611-

Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services. No phone calls will be accepted.

22 RFP Pg.38 -39

N/A The RFQ specifies that Volume III shall include five tabs: A-E. Page 39 describes the requirements for Tabs A-D but not E.

It appears that Tabs D and E may have been combined? Can FNS clarify the requirements separately for Tabs D and E?

Any reference to Tab E has been removed in the RFP.

23 RFP Pg.

39,43

RFQ/

Part E.5/V olum e III:

RFP/S

uppor ting Docu ment s and Past Perfor manc e

“Contractor Teaming Agreements”

Can FNS please clarify the requirement to include signed 'Contractor Teaming Agreements' mentioned on pages 39 and 43 of the RFP? Teaming agreements are typically internal documents not submitted as part of a proposal. Should CTA instead refer to any potential “Contracting Teaming Arrangement”, and be included only if applicable?

If an Offeror proposes the use of signed Contractor Teaming Agreements/ Sub-contractors, the RFP terms and conditions are applicable.

24 RFP Pg.

33, C.4/Tr aining

“The Contractor must ensure employees and

Can FNS clarify which staff are required to complete the FNS training (for example, key personnel only; all staff with access to government data)?

Training section pages:

32 & 33 of the RFP, the second paragraph and chart have been subcontractor employees complete the training course(s) listed below in the frequency identified using the FNS AgLearn web application.

The Contractor must maintain records of course completion and provide them to the CO/CS and COR upon request” removed in entirety.

There will be no AgLearn training required for this requirement.

25 PWS-

Att.

10a and 10b

Pg.11.

Task 4.1

“The Contractor shall provide the code files, and any revisions to the files, used to clean, edit, and prepare the QC data files, as specified in the Task. The files shall be provided in SAS, Stata, and R formats at a minimum within 44 weeks of receipt of the initial QC data from FNS. New revisions to the QC file are run on the complex, historical programs and

Can FNS clarify if they are asking for all historical programming code and any new code moving forward to be programmed in the three programming languages?

The deliverable is for new code moving forward.

would not be severable.”

26 Att.

9a-

IDIQ

Pricing Sched ule

N/A N/A The attachment 9a template is populated with labor categories and hours for each CLIN. Are these intended as examples, where contractors will add their own information, or is FNS expecting the contractor to use only those categories and hours?

The Government has provided anticipated labor categories but an Offeror can propose additional labor categories and different hours.

27 Att.

9a-

IDIQ

Pricing Sched ule

N/A N/A If the hours and labor categories were intended for contractor use, can FNS clarify whether the contractor can adjust the hours in the template based on the proposed work?

Please see response to question 26.

27 Att.

9a-

IDIQ

Pricing Sched ule

N/A N/A The attachment 9a lists 9 labor categories. Can FNS clarify whether the contractor can include additional labor categories?

Please see response to question 26.

28 Att.

9a-

IDIQ

Pricing Sched ule

N/A N/A Prior FNS solicitations have been circulated under a Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contract using negotiated GSA rates. Is FNS's intention that contractors use loaded rates, or would you like us to use the approved GSA rates with discounts?

FNS is open to receiving any discounted rates that can be applied with full detailed contract information where applicable.

29 Att.

9a-

IDIQ

Pricing Sched ule, Att. 9b Deliver able Sched ule

N/A N/A In attachment 9a, CLINs are defined by the project year. In attachment 9b, CLINs are defined by task. Can FNS clarify how the government would like CLINs defined for the submission?

In attachment 9a, labor category CLINs are associated with periods of performance that flow into Attachment 9b Tasks.

30 Att.

9a-

IDIQ

Pricing Sched ule

N/A N/A How would FNS like the contractor to include Other Direct Costs (ODCs) in Attachment 9a?

The Offeror can provide detailed narrative portions of the business/pricing proposal in PDF format.