Amendment001.pdf

July 22, 2014

AG-3198-S-14-0057

EFFECTS OF ASSETS LIMITS ON SNAP PARTICIPATION

QUESTIONS

1. The study requested contains two separate phases—a fixed price six month feasibility study, followed by a possible second phase to implement the plan developed in the first part. The extent of the study that might be feasible under the second phase depends in part on the amount of effort FNS is prepared to invest in tasks such as data set linkage and new imputation and simulation efforts, and the RFP does not give many details on the scope of such work that might be funded. Can FNS provide some information on the level of effort expected for each phase of the project?

Government Response: The anticipated level of effort for Phase I is no more than 1,265 hours. The aniticpated level of effort for Phase II is no more than approximately 2,125 hours. However, the Contractor should propose the best methodology to be used to address research objectives and answer research questions in accordance with the Performance Work statement.

2. The RFP refers to the microsimulation models MATH SIPP+ and the QC mini--‐model based on the SNAP Quality Control Data. The RFP states:

The basic functions of both models can be run on a web--‐based platform, so no special software is needed and all users have their own accounts and the ability to run their own reforms. The MATH SIPP+ model can be used to assess the impact of changing asset limits that currently exist, along with the impact of changing any current eligibility or income rule. The QC Minimodel does not have asset data for households in States without asset limits, therefore it cannot be used to model changes to asset limits.

Does this mean that the winning contractor will be provided access to these models, even if the contractor has no affiliation with Mathematica Policy Research? Would the

Contractor be responsible for running the models through the website, or could the Contractor request eligibility flags—for example, eligibility under current asset rules and eligibility in the absence of asset tests—to be incorporated into a broader SIPP--‐based model?

Can those responding to the RFP have access to the metadata for the two models to assess the extent to which they can be used for relevant simulations?

Government Response: The winning contractor will be given access to these models via the web, which has limited functionality. The contractor will be responsible for running the models.

3. Does FNS anticipate that all software produced or used for file construction and analysis purposes under this project will become the property of FNS? Does the provision of the final analysis files include provision of proprietary software products used to produce them?

Government Response: Yes. We would not expect this to require proprietary software products.

4. If a new simulation model similar to or building upon MATH SIPP+ is created under this project, is it anticipated that the contractor will build and maintain a web site to support it?

Government Response: No

5. Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity? If not, is this a new requirement?

Government Response: This is a new requirement

6. How are these services currently being performed? Under contract? In-house?

Government Response: This is a new requirement

7. If these requirements are currently being performed under a contract, Who is the Contractor?

What is the contract number?

Government Response: These requirements are not currently being performed under a contract.

8. Is there an estimated value range for this requirement?

Government Response: The Government is not providing the estimated value range for this requirement.