Question and Answer Form_0002.pdf

# Industry Comment/Question Government Answers

What is the primary goal of this requirement? The primary goal of this initiative is for the offeror to provide USDA Lender Review Guides for the three Guaranteed Loan Programs. For each program, the awardee will develop, test and refine the guide. To complete this, the awardee will conduct 5 lender reviews, with 5 loan files reviewed for each lender. USDA expects that reviewing 5 loan files will be sufficient to meet the primary goal. The final lender review guide may be based on the offeror’s knowledge and experience require a different number of loan file reviews when evaluating a lender. Please see revised

PWS.

Is there an incumbent contractor currently performing similar services? If so, could you provide details, including the incumbent name and contract number?

No, this is a new requirement.

Was there an incumbent contractor performing this or a similar scope of work prior to this solicitation? If so, please provide the incumbent's name, contract number, period of performance, and total contract value. Please see the answer to question 2.

Is this requirement a new requirement, a follow-on, or a re-compete? If a follow-on or re-compete, please provide the predecessor solicitation/contract number and award amount. Please see the answer to question 2.

Is this a new requirement, if not will USDA provide the incumbent contractor's name and contract number? Please see the answer to question 2.

Prior to this engagement, has this work been performed internally by USDA? Yes, internally at a more limited capacity and scope.

Is there an incumbent? Can you provide details on the prior contract (i.e., Contractor #, Vendor, etc.)? Please see the answer to question 2.

8 Is this a recompete, or a new requirement? Please see the answer to question 2.

Does USDA require a minimum number of FTEs or specific level of staffing coverage for this requirement, or may offerors propose the staffing level they determine necessary to meet the PWS requirements and deliverables?

Offerors are responsible for proposing staffing levels and resource estimates necessary to meet the PWS requirements based on their own professional judgment and experience.

Can the Government provide an estimated level of effort (e.g., hours, FTEs, or expected workload per lender review)? No. Please see the answer to question 9.

To support an accurate level-of-effort estimate, can the Government share the approximate number of loan files reviewed during the 2026 SAU/ECD/RBCS effort, the average labor effort per lender review, and whether any contractor support participated in that effort?

Please refer to PWS Section 3, which requires each lender review to include five (5) loan files and review of five (5) lenders per program. Offerors are responsible for proposing staffing levels and resource estimates necessary to meet the PWS requirements based on their own professional judgment and experience.

Is there a page limitation for the technical proposal? Yes, please see amended RFQ.

Are page limits or a required volume structure specified for the technical and price quotes? Should past performance be submitted on CPARS reference forms, narrative format, or both, and how many references are preferred?

Yes, please see amended RFQ.

Will a pricing template be provided, or should contractors propose their own format?

Please see amended RFQ.

Is there a pricing template USDA RD will provide to offerors to fill out?

Please see the answer to question 14.

16 Can you please explain the format of the quotation or offer? Please see amended RFQ.

Are there Instructions to the Offerors, such as How many Volumes are required to submit, what are those volumes, page limits, font sizes, margin sizes, graphics and table size fonts, font requirement? The volumes being most concerning seem to be omitted from the RFP instructions.

Please see amended RFQ.

Certifications for the provisions of those checked as per 52.252.-1 on page 10? Do I just attach these on a separate page as part of my offer?

No, they are not required to be attached to your quote.

In addition to completing the required block in Form 1449, providing a detailed explanation of the offeror’s ability to perform the required services and resumes of key personnel, what else is required to ensure the offer is complete?

Please see amended RFQ.

Will the Government please clarify if the Offeror is to submit the response based on what is indicated under the Evaluation and Basis for Award, or will the Government be providing additional Instructions for Offerors?

Please see amended RFQ.

Does USDA require specific key personnel roles, minimum qualifications, minimum years of experience, licenses, certifications, or education levels for proposed key personnel? If so, please identify the required roles and qualifications, including whether credentials such as CPA, CFE, CGFM, CDFM, PMP, or similar certifications are required or preferred.

Please see amended PWS.

Per PWS Section 7.0, does USDA have a preference or requirement that key personnel hold specific credentials — for example, CPA, CFE, CRC, mortgage underwriting credentials, or former bank examiner experience?

Please see amended PWS.

PWS §7.0 requires "extensive accounting, forensic, banking, and/or auditing experience" but does not specify minimum years, certifications (CPA, CIA, CFE, CRCM, etc.), or a minimum number of key personnel. Please clarify: (a) the minimum number of key personnel positions required (e.g., Project Manager, Lead Auditor, SME); (b) minimum years of experience and any required certifications for each position; and (c) whether USDA or Federal guaranteed-loan program experience is required, preferred, or not weighted.

Please see amended PWS.

The Technical Acceptability evaluation criteria require resumes for proposed key personnel demonstrating educational and experience qualifications "specified in the PWS," but PWS §7.0 does not specify educational requirements. Please confirm whether a bachelor's degree (or specific field of study) is required for key personnel.

Please see amended PWS.

Will USDA provide a secure file transfer platform or document repository for receiving, storing, reviewing, and exchanging lender files and deliverables, or should offerors include the cost and effort for providing a contractor controlled secure file exchange

Yes, the USDA will provide a secure file transfer platform.

Will USDA furnish a secure file-transfer environment — for example, USDA Box, MAX.gov, or GovCloud SharePoint — for the exchange of PII-laden loan files, or must the contractor provide and accredit one consistent with PWS Section 8.0 and FAR 52.240-93? Are lender reviews expected to be conducted entirely via electronic file exchange, or are on-site lender visits anticipated for any portion?

USDA will provide a secure file transfer platform. It is anticipated that lender reviews will be conducted entirely remote.

Should offerors assume each lender review will include exactly five loan files, or should offerors price an anticipated range of loan files per lender?

As per the clarification, USDA is requiring five loan files per lender.

If USDA determines that more than five loan files are needed for a lender review, will those additional files be handled through a contract modification, optional task, or within the awarded firm fixed price?

Please see amended PWS.

Should offerors assume each lender review includes only document based file review, or should offerors include time for lender interviews, walkthroughs, entrance meetings, exit meetings, or other lender communications?

USDA expects the offeror to develop a complete review guide.

USDA further expects the offeror to use the review guide in performing the lender reviews. The offeror should use their knowledge and experience to determine the most appropriate methodology and price their offer accordingly.

How many Government review and revision cycles should offerors assume for each review guide, lender review report, and program level feedback report?

Offerors should assume at minimum one round of review/comments/revisions for each deliverable.

Has the Government established an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) or anticipated price range for the base period and each option period that may be shared with offerors?

The IGCE is procurement- sensitive. The government will not disclose the IGCE or anticipated price range.

Is there a not-to-exceed budget or independent government cost estimate (IGCE) the Government is willing to share for the base period? Is the "minimum 5 lenders per program" referenced in PWS Section 3.2 a floor and a ceiling, or could lender selection extend beyond five and be handled by modification?

Please see the answers to questions 1 and 31.

The PWS states that in 2026, SAU teamed with ECD and RBCS to conduct lender reviews on 11 individual lenders, expected to complete in May 2026, and that "the results and guides used during this project will be provided to the contractor." Please confirm: (a) what specific deliverables (review guides, work papers, templates, risk-rating tools, sample reports) will be furnished; (b) when these will be provided relative to contract kickoff; and (c) whether the contractor may use them as the foundation for the RBCS guide deliverable (Item 3) or is expected to develop independently.

(a) The Government will provide review guides and sample findings reports. (b) They will be provided at kickoff. (c) The materials can inform the contractor’s development of the RBCS guide

Will the Government be willing to share the guide that the SAU/ECD/RBCS team used to conduct the 11 lender reviews expected to be completed in May 2026? We recognize that the results are not available yet.

Please see the answer to question 33.

Will the awarded contractor receive USDA's existing risk identification and rating framework as part of the government-furnished information referenced in PWS Section 5.0, or is the contractor expected to propose its own framework consistent with PWS Section 3.1?

Contractor is expected to propose its own framework consistent with PWS Section 3.

Please confirm whether the comprehensive review performed on the two RBCS lending institutions in 2024 will also be furnished to the contractor, including the methodology, work papers, and findings.

The 2024 documents will not be provided. The 2026 guide will be provided and it was created based on the 2024 guide.

PWS §5.0 lists "Applicable guidance" as Government-furnished.

Please clarify the scope of this guidance — does it include RBCS, SFH, and MFH program handbooks, regulations (7 CFR), Origination and Servicing Guides, lender agreements, and any internal RD policy memoranda? Will these be provided in a single repository at kickoff?

Any applicable internal guidance (i.e. Program handbook, Guides, etc.) and lender agreements will be provided at kickoff for each contract period. Further guidance for any unanticipated required information will be provided when identified.

Will the Government provide access to the loan files (origination packages, servicing records, financial statements, etc.) to be reviewed, or is the contractor expected to obtain these directly from each lender? If from lenders, what is the Government's role in compelling lender cooperation and timely production of

The lender is the owner/holder of the records. The government will provide initial contact with the lender to authorize review and will facilitate document transfer. Lenders are required to provide the requested documents as a condition of being an approved lender.

PWS §3.1 requires each lender review to include "a minimum of five (5) loan files." Is five (5) loan files the per-lender minimum across all programs, and is there an expected upper bound per lender for pricing purposes? Please confirm whether the Government will pre-select the loan files or whether the contractor selects them based on a risk-based sampling methodology.

Please see the answer to question 1.

The offeror is responsible for determining the methodology for selecting the loan files.

PWS §3.2 anticipates "at least five (5) lenders per program." For pricing and staffing certainty, please confirm: (a) the firm number of lenders to be reviewed in the base period (RBCS) and in each option period (SFH and MFH); (b) the approximate portfolio size range of the lenders to be reviewed (small community lender vs.

large national lender); and (c) whether the five (5) lenders represent a firm minimum or a not-to-exceed quantity under the firm-fixed-price structure.

a) Please see the answer to question 1.

b) The portfolio size range of the lenders will vary. The offeror should use their knowledge and experience to determine how the portfolio size would impact the review guide and should price their offer accordingly.

c) Please see the answer to question 1.

Will the lenders selected for review under this contract be the same 11 lenders being reviewed by SAU/ECD/RBCS in the project completing May 2026, or will they be a different population? If different, what is the selection methodology and expected portfolio characteristics?

The lenders will be different. The portfolio size range of the lenders will vary. The offeror should use their knowledge and experience to determine how the portfolio size would impact the review guide and should price their offer accordingly.

PWS §3.1 requires evaluation of "adherence to industry best practices." Does the Government have a preferred source or framework for industry best practices (e.g., FFIEC, OCC, FDIC examination handbooks, MBA guidelines), or is the contractor expected to propose the framework?

The offeror is expected to propose the framework.

Deliverable Item 6 (Review Guide for SFH) is shown as due "At the end of 2nd Option term," but Item 6 is part of Option 1 (SFH).

Please clarify whether Item 6 is due at the end of the 1st option period (SFH) or the 2nd option period (MFH).

A: Item 6 is due at the end of the SFH option. Item 9 is due at the end of the MFH option.

Deliverable Items 4, 7, and 10 (Lender Review Reports) state delivery is approximately 1 per month "in middle of term." With an 8-month period of performance per program and 5 lender reviews each, please confirm the expected start date for the first lender review in each program and whether some overlap of reviews is acceptable.

A: The offeror is expected to provide a proposed schedule as part of the technical approach, which will be incorporated into the proposed project plan (Deliverable 1) once official contract kickoff dates are known.

The SF 1449 shows the Base period as 05/15/2026 to 04/14/2028 (24 months), but the Solicitation Information section states "one

(1) eight (8) month base period and two (2) eight (8) month option periods" (totaling 24 months). Please confirm that the Base period is 8 months (05/15/2026 –01/14/2027), Option 1 is 8 months (01/15/2027 – 09/14/2027), and Option 2 is 8 months (09/15/2027

– 04/14/2028).

A: The Base, 8 months (05/15/2026-01/14/2027), Option 1, 8 months (01/15/2027-09/14/2027), Option 2, 8 months (09/15/2027-04/14/2028).

05/15/2026 to 04/14/2028 (24 months) reflects the overall contract PoP, inclusive of option periods.

The Schedule shows three CLINs (0001, 1001, 2001) without quantity, unit, or unit price fields completed. Please confirm whether offerors should propose a single firm-fixed-price lump sum per CLIN that covers all deliverables in that period, or whether a more detailed pricing breakdown (e.g., per guide, per lender review) is required. If a specific pricing template or attachment is desired, please provide it.

Please see the amended RFQ and Attachment 2 - Price Workbook.

The Evaluation section references FAR 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services) for a six-month extension period to be added to the price evaluation. Please confirm how offerors should reflect this in pricing — should a separate 52.217-8 line be priced, or will the Government compute the evaluated price by prorating the last option period rates?

Please see the amended RFQ and Attachment 2 - Price Workbook.

PWS §6.0 states "Travel is not anticipated." Please confirm the Government's expectation that all lender reviews will be conducted remotely (i.e., lenders will provide loan files and records electronically and interviews will occur via video/phone). If on-site visits to a lender become necessary or beneficial, will travel be reimbursed under FAR 31.205-46/FTR as an additional cost, or must it be included in the firm-fixed-price?

Travel is not anticipated. All lender reviews are expected to be conducted remotely. Should on-site travel become necessary, it will require advance approval from the Contracting Officer’s Representative and will be reimbursed in accordance with FAR 31.205-46 and the Federal Travel Regulations. Offerors should not include travel costs in their firm-fixed price.

FAR 52.222-41 (Service Contract Labor Standards) and 52.222- 42 (Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires) are checked as applicable. Given the professional nature of the work (auditing, forensic accounting), please confirm whether SCA applies in full and, if so, please provide the applicable Wage Determination(s) and the SCA labor categories the Government anticipates mapping the work to. Alternatively, would the work qualify for an exemption under 29 CFR 4.156 (bona fide professional employees) such that 52.222-53 governs?

FAR 52.222-41, and FAR 52.222-42 does not apply to this solicitation.

Please confirm: (a) the number of past performance references requested; (b) the recency window (e.g., within the last 3 or 5 years); (c) whether references must be of similar size, scope, and complexity (and the Government's definition of "similar"); and (d) whether Federal, state/local, and commercial references are all acceptable.

Please see amended RFQ.

Please confirm the required quotation format, including: (a) page limits for technical and price volumes; (b) required file format (Word, PDF, Excel for pricing); (c) submission method and email address (presumably Christopher.Bany@usda.gov per the Questions instruction); and (d) whether separate volumes are required for Technical, Price, and Past Performance.

Please see amended RFQ.

The offer due date is 05/08/2026 at 1300 ET. Given the volume of clarifications likely to result from these questions and the questions deadline of 05/01/2026 12:00 PM EST, would the Government consider extending the offer due date to allow offerors adequate time to incorporate Q&A responses?

Please see amendment 0001.

Due to such a short turnaround, will the Government consider extending the submission due date at least 10 business days?

Please see amendment 0001.

Will the Government require an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) representation or mitigation plan? Specifically, are offerors that currently provide services to (or have recently audited) lenders participating in RD Guaranteed Loan Programs eligible to compete, and if so, what mitigation measures are expected?

USDA expects any offeror to be independent in accordance with AICPA rules. Any potential conflicts of interest would need to be disclosed up front, and the offeror should propose a mitigation plan.

PWS Section 1.0 indicates that "the results and guides used during" the 2026 SAU/ECD/RBCS lender review effort will be provided to the contractor. Will these existing review guides and the related work product be made available to offerors prior to quote submission, or only to the awardee post-award?

Please see the answer to question 37.

FAR 52.204-9 (Personal Identity Verification) and AGAR 452.204- 71 are incorporated. Given that travel is not anticipated and the work appears to be performed remotely, please confirm whether contractor personnel will require USDA LincPass / PIV credentials, or whether logical access to USDA systems can be provisioned without PIV. If PIV is required, please describe the enrollment process and timeline.

Please see amended RFQ.

Will subcontractor and teaming-partner personnel be required to obtain a LincPass/PIV credential under FAR 52.204-9, or only personnel with routine USDA system access? Is U.S. citizenship required for all personnel handling loan files, or is permanent residency acceptable?

See updated PWS. All personnel working with sensitive and PII data (the loan files) will be required to store that data on a USDA laptop and to obtain USDA credentials and an account.

Are offerors permitted to propose proprietary review-management software or platforms to support consistent review execution, provided that all deliverables are produced in Section 508-compliant formats per PWS Section 10.0 and that government data rights under PWS Section 9.0 are preserved? Per PWS Section 9.0, all deliverables become Government property; does this extend to the underlying contractor-developed tools or platforms used to produce the deliverables, or only to the deliverables themselves?

The Government's expectation is that all key deliverables will be provided according to the PWS. The offeror is expected to provide a proposed schedule as part of the technical approach, which would include any offeror identified deliverables.

PWS §8.0 states the contractor will safeguard sensitive and PII information. Please specify: (a) the required security framework (NIST SP 800-171, FedRAMP, CMMC level, USDA-specific requirements); (b) whether contractor-owned IT systems are acceptable or whether Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be provided; (c) any required encryption standards for data at rest and in transit; and (d) whether a System Security Plan (SSP) or equivalent must be submitted prior to handling Government data.

Refer to updated PWS

FAR clauses 52.224-3 (Privacy Training), 52.240-92 (Security Requirements), and 52.240-93 (Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems) are incorporated. Will USDA provide privacy training, or must the contractor source its own equivalent training? Are there USDA-specific security training modules contractor personnel must complete prior to beginning work?

USDA will provide access to training.

PWS §10.0 requires all electronic deliverables comply with Section 508. Please confirm: (a) whether deliverables must conform to the current Revised 508 Standards / WCAG 2.0 AA (or

2.1 AA); (b) whether an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR / VPAT) is required per deliverable; and (c) whether USDA will provide a Section 508 review/acceptance process or whether contractor self-certification is sufficient

Self-certification by the contractor will suffice.