Attachment B Combined vendor questions Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Department of Social Services

RFP 5400020111

Table of Figures

Are there any restrictions on the file size that can be submitted? If the file size is too large is it permissible to split the file up into smaller files?

State’s Response:

Maximum file size is 10MB and there is a character limit of 30 for the file name. The number of attachments is not limited. If file size is larger than 10MB it is permissible to split the file as long as all files are labeled appropriately.

RFP Reference: p.20, paragraph 1 Please confirm bidders can include a transmittal letter after the table of contents.

State’s Response:

Yes, bidders can include a transmittal letter after the table of contents.

RFP Reference: N/A Please clarify whether bidders price proposal should be labeled “Price Proposal” or “Price-Business Proposal.”

State’s Response Offeror’s should label their price proposal “Price Proposal” RFP Reference: N/A Will the State allow a follow up round of clarification questions after the State’s Responses are issued?

State’s Response Yes, the State allow a follow up round of clarification questions after the State’s Responses are issued.

Amendment 3 Reference: p.1 “QUESTIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY” and page 3, item# 2.

Page 3 of the RFP states one USB drive is to be provided with three files (entire response with price proposal, entire response without price proposal, and redacted entire response with price proposal), while RFP page 24 states: “Each copy should be on separate media. Your business and technical proposals must be on separate media.” Please confirm bidders should provide one USB drive with three files.

State’s Response:

Qty. 1 (one) USB drive copy of the RFP response. USB drive will have only 4 (four) files:

· Your first file will be your Technical Proposal

· Your second file will be your Price Proposal

· Your third file will be a redacted * Technical Proposal

· Your fourth file will be a redacted Price Proposal RFP Reference: p.3, Number of Copies.

RFP Section IIA, under “Amendments to Solicitation (Jan 2004)” (page 9), states: “Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation (1) by signing and returning the amendment…” Please confirm the signed amendments should follow the Cover Page and Page Two in bidder’s submission. Also, Amendment 1 did not include a confirmation page to sign; it instead included a revised Cover Page and Page Two. Please confirm that using the revised Cover Page and Page Two in our submittal (and listing the amendment where indicated) is sufficient confirmation for Amendment 1.

State’s Response Yes, the state confirms that signed amendments should follow the Cover Page and Page Two in bidder’s submission and that using the revised Cover Page and Page Two in our submittal (and listing the amendment where indicated) are sufficient.

RFP Reference: p.9 RFP Section II.B, Contents of Offer (RFP) (modified) (page 22), states: “If your offer includes any comment over and above the specific information requested in the solicitation, you are to include this information as a separate appendix to your offer.” Please confirm that the appendix is to be provided as part of bidders Technical Proposal response and not as a separate file.

State’s Response The appendix may be provided as a part of the bidders Technical Proposal provided it is labelled as an appendix.

RFP Reference: p.19 RFP Section II.B, under “Demonstrations” (page 22), states that “The time allotted per individual Offeror to present and demonstrate facts shall not exceed two (2) hours to include question and answer session.” RFP Section VI, under “Evaluation Factors – Proposals (Jan 2006)” (page 117) states: “Oral Presentations will be held virtually, with each presentation scheduled for Four hours.” Will the State please clarify if the demonstration session will be two hours or four hours?

State’s Response- “Demonstrations” (page 22), is amended to read “The time allotted per individual Offeror to present and demonstrate facts shall not exceed four (4) to include question and answer session.”

RFP Reference: p.19. DEMONSTRATIONS RFP Section III.34, File Transmission (page 43) states: “The set of EBT files, necessary for updating recipient demographic and benefit data will be transmitted to the EBT Contractor nightly. The set of Case/Client Maintenance files will be transmitted by the State by 1:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) using secure FTP.” Would the State consider sending the daily and monthly files prior to 11:00 p.m. ET on a given day to ensure that they are processed on the current date?

State’s Response Yes, the state will send the daily and monthly files at 8:00pm to midnight RFP Reference: p.38 RFP Section III.53, Service Requirements (Standards) (page 50), references the “minimum standards defined in Section II B. Performance Standards, for the Help Desk.” Performance Standards are not provided with the RFP. Please provide bidders with this information.

State’s Response Section III.53, Service Requirements (Standards) are listed in table 1 below. Disregard the reference to Section II B in Section III.53.

RFP Reference: pp.46 - 48 Customer Service Help Desks

a) 95% of all calls answered within 4 rings, measured over a 3-month period. (4 rings are defined as 25 seconds.)

b) 97% of all calls for Customer Service Representatives (CSR) answered within 2 minutes, measured over a three-month period.

a) Failure to answer 95% of all calls within 4 rings, measured over a 3- month period.

b) Failure to answer 97% of all calls for CSR within 2 minutes, measured over a 3-month period.

Table 1 Recipient Help Desk Service Requirements RFP Section III.53, Service Requirements (Standards) (page 50), states: “Help Desk access and support for recipients using rotary phones must be provided.” Since rotary phones are rarely used today, would the state please remove this requirement?

State’s Response No, the state will not remove this requirement. SCDSS has clients in rural areas who use rotary phone and the contractor must support them.

RFP Reference: pp. 46 - 48 RFP Section III.59, Account History (page 51) states: “Account History shall enable a caller to request a two (2) month statement of account history to be mailed to the last known client address within two (2) business days of the date of the request.” Will the state confirm that access to a two (2) month statement through the recipient portal satisfies this requirement?

State’s Response Yes, access to a two-month statement through the recipient portal satisfies this requirement.

RFP Reference: p.49 RFP Section III.67, Recipient Website (page 53), states that the website will include: “Ability to update address information.” While recipient website access is secured, allowing address changes to be made through the recipient website creates a potential path for fraudulent address changes to be made to redirect delivery of EBT cards to unauthorized users. Also, the ability to change a cardholder address through the recipient website creates the likelihood of discrepancies in address information being passed to the State’s eligibility system that would have to be resolved. To avoid these potential issues, we would recommend that the State remove this function from the recipient website and only allow changes to cardholder addresses from the EBT system to be performed as defined in RFP requirements III.56, Report Card Delivery Issues, and III.87, Functionality.

State’s Response Yes, we will remove this function from the recipient website and only allow changes to cardholder addresses from the EBT system to be performed as defined in RFP requirements III.56, Report Card Delivery Issues, and III.87, Functionality.

RFP Reference: p.50, #67. Recipient Website, and p.58, #87. Functionality RFP Section III.77, EBT-Only Equipment/Peripheral Supplies (page 57), refers offerors to “Section IV 1.2.15 for details.” The section referenced is invalid. Please provide bidders with this information.

State’s Response The correct reference is Appendix F. Retailers RFP Reference: P.188 – 189 Both RFP Sections III.122 and III.123 (page 74) are labeled “Batch Processing Reporting.” Should Section III.123 be labeled “Batch Exception Reporting?”

State’s Response Yes. Section III.123 should be labeled “Batch Exception Reporting” RFP Reference: p.71 RFP Section II.181, Cash Program Benefit Specs (page 87), outlines five store types to be assigned to peer groups. These store types and peer groups are related to the WIC program only and not the EFT program that will support consumer owned accounts for TANF benefits and other cash payments. The reference to peer groups is related to the WIC program only. Will the state consider removing this requirement?

State’s Response Yes, the state will remove this requirement. WIC is no longer part of this RFP.

RFP Reference: p.84 RFP Section II.43.42, Card Technical Specifications (page 89), states: “The Contractor shall ensure that the Cash debit card designed and produced for South Carolina complies with the specifications prescribed in the Quest Operating Rules, and the International Standards Organization (ISO) and American National Standards Institution (ANSI) standards relating to cards used for financial transactions.” Since the card used in the program is a commercial debit card and must comply federal Regulation E standards, Quest Operating Rules do not apply. Would the State please remove this part of the requirement?

State’s Response No, SC has two separate cards for ePay and EBT. Quest Operating Rules apply to the EBT card. Federal Regulations E Standards will apply to the ePay card (debit card).

RFP Reference: p.41 RFP Section II.192, Card Design (page 90), states that the “toll-free numbers for Client Assistance and Merchant/Provider Voice Authorizations shall be printed on the card” and “shall include the Quest™ logo.” The Merchant/Provider Voice Authorizations and the Quest logo requirements are not applicable to the debit card program. Would the State consider removing the requirements?

State’s Response Yes, the State has removed the Quest option for the debit card program only.

RFP Reference: p.87 RFP Section II.43.195, Card Delivery Timeframe Requirements (page 91), requires the Offeror ensure that recipients receive their cards within 3 days. Since there is a requirement for mailing the next day and the vendor has no control over the USPS, would the state consider removing the requirement to receive the cards within 3 days?

State’s Response Yes, the state will amend the Card Delivery Timeframe Requirements to 7-10 business days for ePay cards.

RFP Reference: p.87-88 RFP Section II.43.215, Recipient Website (page 94), states that the website will include: “Functionality to allow sign up for direct deposit.” Would the State please confirm the requirement for signing up for direct deposit is for enrollment only?

State’s Response No, Enrollees may elect check payment initially but must be able to later change to direct deposit.

RFP Reference: pp.91-92 RFP Section III.218, Settlement and Reconciliation (page 95), states: “The Contractor must own and reconcile the clearing bank account used for the daily settlement. The bank account must be at a financial institution with a South Carolina presence.” To meet prepaid debit card guidelines and banking regulations, as well as provide FDIC pass-through insurance and the lowest price for cardholders participating in the EPC program, will the State consider amending the requirement as follows: “The Contractor must own and reconcile the clearing bank account used for the daily settlement. The bank account must be at a financial institution that is federally insured and titled ‘for the benefit of the State of South Carolina benefit recipients.’”?

State’s Response No, the state will not amend the requirement as requested.

RFP Reference: p. 92 RFP Section III, Pricing and Specifications (page 96), and Section VIII.5, Pricing for Fee for Services (page 161) state: “Schedule 4 is to be used to provide the fees to be charged to consumer owned account holders.” Schedule 4 [is not] provided in the RFP.Please provide bidders with this information.

State’s Response Please disregard all references to Schedule 4 in the RFP.

RFP Reference: N/A

RFP Section IV (page 101) states: “The Offeror must cross reference its technical proposal with the requirements listed in Section III” and RFP Section IV.3.III.43 requests a point-by-point response to Section III. Please confirm bidders are not required to cross-reference Section III anywhere other than item 43.

State’s Response:

If items on this point-by-point response have already been addressed in items 1 thru 43, simply say “please see___”. You do not have to duplicate your answer/explanation. There are items, such as the introduction & background, delivery/performance location that will not require an answer. If in doubt, err on the side of inclusiveness.

RFP Reference: p. 104 RFP Section IV.3, Information for Offerors to Submit (page 110), states: “You should submit a summary of all insurance policies you have or plan to acquire to comply with the insurance requirements stated herein, if any, including policy types; coverage types; limits, sub-limits, and deductibles for each policy and coverage type; the carrier's A.M. Best rating; and whether the policy is written on an occurrence or claims-made basis.” Please clarify if insurance information should be provided in the appendix section of bidders’ proposal.

State’s Response:

Yes, provide the information in the appendix section.

Amendment 3 Reference: p. 5, Item# 11 Please clarify if bidders’ responses to the Minority Participation form (RFP page 111) should be included with Proposal Section V Price Proposal. If not, please provide bidders with where this document should be included in their proposal.

State’s Response There are no specific requirements regarding the section of your response to include the Minority Participation form.

RFP Reference: pp.106-107 Please clarify if bidders’ responses to RFP Section V, Qualifications, pages 113-114, should be included as a separate proposal section (VII) or with Proposal Section IV Qualifications and Experience.

State’s Response:

These items can be included with the proposal section.

RFP Reference: p. 108 - 101 The “Evaluation Criteria (Phase I)” table on RFP page 118 states that the Technical Proposal is worth a maximum of 50 points. Will the State provide a breakdown of the Technical Proposal scoring weights for the Executive Summary, Technical Proposal, and Project Management and Planning?

State’s Response:

The entire technical proposal section is worth 50 points. There is no separate breakdown for the executive summary, technical proposal or the project management and planning) RFP Reference: p.111, Evaluation Criteria The “Evaluation Criteria (Phase I)” table on RFP page 118 states that “Cost will be scored subjectively by the scoring panel.” Can the State please explain why they will use subjective rather than objective scoring methods for the price proposal? Can the state please clarify how the price proposal will be evaluated?

State’s Response:

Subjective Scoring: scoring is a two-part process: technical score and score for cost/price. First, the panel will individually score the technical portion of the Offerors’ responses. The state will evaluate all tiers of the CPCM and case types although the 300,001 - 310,000 tier will be weighted higher than the other tiers because it is the tier into which DSS generally falls. At this point in the evaluation process, no scoring panel member or subject matter expert is privy to pricing. The panel is simply scoring the technical portion of the Offerors’ responses. Once that part of the scoring process is complete, the procurement officer discloses pricing for each of the proposals evaluated. The panel will consider each Offeror’s technical proposal and proposed cost to subjectively score the overall value of the proposed solution.

RFP Reference: p.112 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS (page 125) – Would the State be willing to clarify that the selected contractor will be responsible for all laws applicable to the contractor in the performance of the specified services, and that the State will be responsible for compliance with all laws applicable to the customer as the owner of the project?

State’s Response See Amendment 3 Reference: p.5, ITEM#10

At this time, the State will not be making any modifications to these clauses. The State may elect to conduct negotiations as outlined in the Discussions and Negotiations Clause.

Default (page 130) – Would the State be willing to provide the selected contractor with thirty (30) days’ written notice and opportunity to cure prior to a termination for default?

State’s Response:

The amount of time given to cure a deficiency is on a case-by-case basis (depends on the deficiency that has to be addressed). The amount of time afforded is solely at the discretion of the procurement officer.

RFP Reference: pp. 123 - 124 Indemnification-Third Party Claims-General (page 131) – An indemnity clause holds a contractor accountable for losses that are incurred due to the contractor’s fault or negligence in performing the contract services. But in some cases, particularly in large scale IT services contracts, claims may arise due to the shared fault of the customer and the contractor. Would the State be willing to apportion responsibility in cases of shared fault so that the contractor will only indemnify the State for the contractor’s own portion of the harm?

State’s Response See Amendment 3, p. 4. ITEM# 8 Limitation of Liability – Single State (page 138) – Would the State replace the language “[a dollar amount]” with a numeric value in items (1) and (5)?

State’s Response Amendment 3 Reference: pp.4-5, The state has added clause “Limitation of Liability – Single Agency (May 2020)” to Section VII B of the solicitation and established a “not to exceed” amount

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY -- SINGLE AGENCY (MAY 2020)

(1) Contractor's liability for damages to the Using Governmental Unit shall not exceed $88,000,000 or two and one-half times the total potential value of the contract listed on the Statement of Award. If there is a difference between the two numbers, the total on the Statement of Award shall take precedence.

Most Favored Customer (page 149) – Would the State be willing to limit the scope of the Most Favored Customer clause to public sector contracts specifically for EBT services, where the period of performance, scope requirements, and terms and conditions are comparable? Would the State be willing to limit the application of any price changes to “prospective” or going-forward invoices only?

State’s Response The state requests the bidder provides more information regarding this question if the question refers to a known example of current EBT services provided to which this request may specifically apply.

RFP Reference: p. 141 Suspension of Work (page 157) – Contractors understand the need for customers to be able to suspend a project temporarily under compelling circumstances. But suspensions are disruptive to the contractor, particularly if the suspension is not limited to a short period. Would the State be willing to limit any suspension to no more than fifteen (15) days without negotiating an equitable adjustment with the contractor, or discussing the need for a possible termination?

State’s Response See Amendment 3, p. 4. ITEM# 8 Please confirm if bidders’ responses to RFP Section VIII, items 1 to 7 (pages 160-163), should be provided in the Price-Business Proposal, or if some or all of the items should be addressed in bidders Technical Proposal, Section V, Price Proposal.

State’s Response:

Offerors must provide RFP Section VIII items 1 to 7 in the price-business proposal.

RFP Reference: pp.153 -154 RFP Section VIII.7, Adequate Cash Access (page 162) includes pricing for providing money order services for recipients. Please describe the circumstances in which the Money Order would be issued.

State’s Response For SC EBT we only have SNAP and there is no Cash program. There is no functionality to support Money Orders as we only have SNAP for South Carolina EBT. The State has removed all reference to money orders.

RFP Reference: p. 154 RFP Section IX, Attachments to Solicitation, includes the “Service Provider Security Assessment Questionnaire” (page 166). Are bidders to provide the Service Provider Security Assessment Questionnaire with their responses? If so, where?

State’s Response Offerors must provide the “Service Provider Security Assessment Questionnaire” with their response. There is no specific requirement regarding which section of your response to include assessment.

RFP Reference: pp.157 - 158 RFP Section IX, Appendix R, Schedule 1: EBT Core Cost Per Case Month (CPCM Pricing) (page 316), refers offers to “Section IV. - 1.1.7, for the definition of an active case for pricing and invoicing purposes.” The section referenced is invalid. Please provide bidders with this information.

State’s Response An Active Case/Account is a Case or Account to which benefits have been posted and made available during the billing month.

RFP Reference: P.308 Section 181 on page 87 states: “Each vendor must comply with at least one of the established definitions for store types in order to be assigned to a peer group…There are 21 pharmacies currently authorized.” Can the State clarify this requirement relative to branded debit card services? In terms of the number of types authorized, what are they authorized for? Are cardholders limited to using their cards at these authorized vendors?

State’s Response The vendor data is only maintained for EBT, it is not a requirement for Debit cards. No vendor data is available for debit cards.

RFP Reference: P.84 Section 189 on page 89 states: “The State will require the Contractor to use a network that ensures that no cash program recipient must travel any further than five (5) miles to any cash access location” a) Would the State consider an exception to this requirement in rural areas, where ATMs or bank branches are not as frequently located? b) If not, can the State more precisely identify expected cash access locations based on this requirement?

State’s Response The State does not have this data.

RFP Reference: N/A Section 192 on page 90 states: “The toll-free numbers for Client Assistance and Merchant/Provider Voice Authorizations shall be printed on the card.” Is the requirement for a toll-free number for Merchant/Provider Voice Authorizations intended to be an EBT requirement rather than a debit card requirement?

State’s Response The RFP includes two separate section for Card Design for EBT (Section 43, page 46) and Cash Benefit Programs (Section 192, page 89, continues to page 90). Both sections defined having Client Assistance and Merchant/Provider Voice Authorization toll free numbers.

RFP Reference: p.87 Section 193 on page 90 states: “The EBT Contractor must provide for the authentication of data encoded on the card magnetic stripe and PIN offset.” Can the State define what is meant by PIN offset?

State’s Response A PIN offset is a value that is the difference between two PINs. For example, a PIN offset may be the difference between a PIN that the customer chooses, and one assigned by an institution; it may be hardcoded on the card. The SC EBT Vendor would host the PIN offset, conduct PIN verification, and follow the standards established by the Quest Operating rules for PIN entry, encryption, transmission, key management processes, and procedures for PIN setup and selection services. The PIN offset resides only on the host (EPPIC). In addition, the PIN offset will not be included on the card.

Section 198 on page 92 states: “In rare circumstances where the replacement card is not being delivered by the Postal Service after repeated attempts, the card must be delivered overnight.” Can the State further define these circumstances and quantify the anticipated volume and frequency of overnight deliveries required?

State’s Response In circumstances of rental property or the post office not being able to deliver the card for unknown reasons, the current contractor can overnight a card to the client. Currently we have a limit of 25 cards per year. In 2020 there were 18 overnight expedited card deliveries.

RFP Reference: p.89 Section 209 on page 94 states: “Callers must be given information about the Contractor website that provides information to recipients relating to their account. Included in this information must be information relating to direct deposit setup.” Section 214 also requires the functionality to allow sign up for direct deposit. Will the State provide a link to a State website that allows direct deposit setup, or must the Contractor provide the functionality to enroll in the State’s direct deposit program?

State’s Response:

Currently, the Direct Deposit option is only provided by the State. Currently (with the current vendor) cardholders can transfer funds from their Go Account to their personal account once they have activated their Way2Go card. As needed, SCDSS can add the State agency link in the Go Program website for the cardholders. This allows the cardholders to select the State agency link. The new contractor will need to provide this same kind of function or something comparable.

RFP Reference: pp.90-91 Section 218 on page 95 states: “The Contractor must own and reconcile the clearing bank account used for the daily settlement. The bank account must be at a financial institution with a South Carolina presence.” Would the State consider revising this requirement to allow for use of a branchless bank for funding card accounts and reconciliation?

State’s Response No, see question to question 21.

RFP Reference: p.92 Section 219 on page 96 states: “The Contractor will transmit to the State confirmation of receipt of files, and the results of the processing (for example: number and dollar amount forwarded to ACH for direct deposit, number and dollar amount of debit accounts set up and account number; number and dollar amount of deposits into existing debit accounts, rejections, and reason codes)” While the RFP does not otherwise appear to require the functionality to perform direct deposits into bank accounts, this reporting requirement gives that functionality as an example. Can the State please confirm that direct deposit of funds to client bank accounts is not a requirement of this RFP?

State’s Response:

No. Direct deposit is an integral part of this program’s service delivery and is a requirement for successful bidding under this RFP.

RFP Reference: pp.92-93 For Appendix G Cash Program Activity, a) can the State provide program activity for the last twelve months or other more recent period? b) Can the State also identify the volumes and amounts of payments made by direct deposit and check in addition to debit card payments?

State’s Response Appendix G has been updated in the RFP to provide this information.

RFP Reference: pp. 190-193 Can the State provide Schedule 4?

State’s Response Please disregard all references to Schedule 4 in the RFP.

RFP Reference: N/A Section: Number of Copies, Page 3 This section states that a single USB is to include a file containing only the technical proposal, a file containing both the technical and cost proposals, and a file containing the redacted version of the technical and cost proposals. However, section IV, (V) Price Proposal on page 110, states that Price-Business Proposal must be submitted separately from the technical proposal. Would the State please clarify if the Price Proposal is required to be submitted on its own USB?

State’s Response:

Qty. 1 (one) USB drive copy of the RFP response. USB drive will have only 4 (four) files:

Your first file will be your Technical Proposal Your second file will be your Price Proposal Your third file will be a redacted * Technical Proposal Your fourth file will be a redacted Price Proposal RFP Reference: p.3 Section: Instructions to Offerors – Demonstrations, Page 23 In this sentence in item (g), is the word “if”, a mistake or is this sentence incomplete? “If the demonstration must be viewable on SCDSS PC’s”.

State’s Response The sentence does have a typo; however, demonstrations cannot be viewed on SCDSS computers. DSS can provide an internet connection; however, presentation/demonstrations should be in person and not viewed on DSS machines.

RFP Reference: p.22 Section: III. Introduction & Background, Page 26 The 2nd paragraph states that one of the goals of DSS is to meet the State’s cost constraint requirements. Please provide these cost constraint requirements applicable to the contract that will result from this procurement.

State’s Response DSS does not have unlimited funds available for this program.

RFP Reference: P.23 Section: III.a Existing Environment – P-EBT, Page 27 What is the current CPCM for SNAP cases?

State’s Response This cost varies depending on SNAP caseload.

RFP Reference: pp. 22 - 24 Section: III.a Existing Environment – P-EBT, Page 27 What liquidated damages have been assessed on the current contractor under the current contract and for what reasons?

State’s Response This information is not relevant to the current Request for Proposals.

RFP Reference: N/A Section: III.a Existing Environment – P-EBT, Page 27 The Pandemic EBT (P-EBT) program isn’t referenced in any other section of the RFP other than the “Existing Environment” section. And the Existing Environment section states “there is no guarantee this program will continue past the currently defined federal legislation or if additional administrative funding will continue past the COVID-19 national pandemic”. Could the State please clarify if the awarded Contractor is required to provide support for P-EBT benefits under the new contract?

State’s Response Yes, if the P-EBT program is still in effect after contract award, the EBT Vendor will be responsible for providing support for the State’s existing P-EBT program.

RFP Reference: pp. 23 - 21 Section: III.a Existing Environment – P-EBT, Page 27 If the awarded Contractor is required to provide support for P-EBT benefits, would the State confirm that specific requirements and the scope of support will be defined through the change request process at the time the State wishes to implement distribution of P-EBT benefits under the new contract?

State’s Response It would be mandatory to provide P-EBT support service under the EBT/EFT contract as required by the state.

RFP Reference: pp. 23 - 21 Section: III.a Existing Environment – P-EB, Page 27 If P-EBT pricing is required to be included in each bidders’ proposal, should the program setup fee for this program be included in the Optional CPCM pricing or added to the EBT Fee for Service pricing?

State’s Response Neither, the state will not pay a program setup fee for these services. The state may deem offerors proposing a setup fee for this program as non-responsive.

RFP Reference: pp. 23 - 21 Section: III. a Existing Environment – P-EBT, Page 27 Should the cost per case month for the support of P-EBT cases be included in the Optional Service pricing or added as a service to the EBT Fee for Service pricing?

State’s Response Offerors should include information about cost per case month for the support of P-EBT cases as a separate item. The state will not use this information for evaluation purposes; however, may opt to negotiate the price for these services.

RFP Reference: pp. 23 - 21 Section: III.a Existing Environment – P-EBT, Page 27 For P-EBT cases, does the State anticipate using regular South Carolina EBT cards or generic white cards?

State’s Response The State anticipates using generic white cards RFP Reference: pp. 23 - 21 Section: III.a Existing Environment – P-EBT, Page 27 What is the cost structure for the State’s current P-EBT program?

State’s Response Currently, the State pays an initial case setup fee and then an additional monthly CPCM.

RFP Reference: pp. 23 - 21 Section: III.a Existing Environment – P-EBT, Page 27 What was the P-EBT caseload in 2020 and what is the current 2021 P-EBT caseload?

State’s Response Estimated total caseloads appears in table 2 below. caseloads.

RFP Reference: N/A

Table 2 Estimated Caseloads SY 2019-2001, SY 2020 - 2021 Section: III.a Existing Environment – P-EBT, Page 27 What was the P-EBT monthly benefit dollar amount in 2020 and what is the current monthly benefit dollar amount in 2021?

States Response Estimated total Issuance information appears in table 3 below.

RFP Reference: N/A

Table 3 Estimated Issuance SY 2019-2020, SY 2021-2022 Section: III. General Specifications #6, Page 32 This section states that a cost estimate is to be provided at the hourly rate for labor grades provided in the pricing proposal for State-requested changes that exceed the allocated 200 hours. The pricing schedules do not contain a table for hourly rates. Would the State provide a pricing table for the labor grade hourly rates for which it wishes the Offeror to provide pricing?

State’s Response Offerors should develop their hourly pricing proposals based on the hourly rate for labor grades used for the development of changes for the contract. Labor grades would include, but not limited to, areas such as project management, design, development and testing, and migrations.

RFP Reference: pp. 28-29 Section: III. General Specifications #6, Page 32 The State is requiring up to 200 hours of “combined” design, development, and testing time to the State for each delivery method (SNAP, Cash debit card). Does “combined” mean 200 hours for the combined programs or does “combined” mean 200 hours for combined development and testing tasks for the SNAP EBT program and 200 hours for the Cash debit card program totaling 400 hours annually?

State’s Response The solicitation states that the contractor shall provide up to 200 hours of combined design, development and testing to the state for each delivery method (i.e. EBT SNAP and Cash debit card). This would equate to a total of 400 hours (200 SNAP, 200 debit card) RFP Reference: pp.28-29 Section: III. General Specifications #28, Page 41 This paragraph references closure of the project to include the State’s approval of the conversion of a paper check delivery system to an EBT delivery system. Could the State confirm that it intends to convert the current process of cutting checks for Foster Board and Adoption Subsidy payments to distributing those payments through a branded debit card?

State’s Response Foster Care Board Payments and Subsidy Payments are issued on a card or through direct deposit RFP Reference: P.36 Section: III. SNAP Requirements #53, Page 50 This paragraph refers to performance standards that are to be included in Section II.B, however no performance standards are defined in that section. Would the State provide the performance standards which will apply to the contract that will result from this procurement?

State’s Response Refer to question 10 in this document.

RFP Reference: N/A Section: III. SNAP Requirements #67, Page 53 This section requires that recipients be able to contact customer service via the Cardholder Website and receive answers within 24 hours. How are these answers provided to SNAP recipients today (i.e., email, text, outbound phone call, some other mechanism, etc.)?

State’s Response We do not have this functionality built in the cardholder portal today to provide answers via email or text to the cardholders. For any questions they need to call the call center and speak with a representative. In case it is a technical issue i.e. forgetting their portal security question, user id and or password, the CSR opens a ticket for them and then calls them back and provides them an answer.

RFP Reference: P.50 Section: III. SNAP Requirements #70, Page 54 This paragraph requires newly authorized retailers to have access to the system within 2 weeks of the contractor receiving the FNS authorization notice for the retailer. While we understand this is an FNS standard, it isn’t possible to provide equipment to a retailer until the signed agreement has been returned. Would the State consider modifying this requirement for the contractor to provide access within 2 weeks of its receipt of the retailer’s signed agreement?

State’s Response No. South Carolina must comply with federal regulation that prohibits non-approved retailers RFP Reference: P.52 Section: III. SNAP Requirements #72 Group Home Support, Page 55 How many Group Home Support facilities are actively participating and require POS devices? And how many cases are supported within the facilities as a whole?

State’s Response The State is not currently aware of any group homes that have these devices.

RFP Reference: P.53 Foster Section: III. SNAP Requirements #73 Farmers Markets, Page 55 What quantity of wireless POS devices is the Contractor to provide for Farmers and or Farmers’ Markets at no cost or within the proposed CPCM? For what period of time is the data service for the wireless devices to be activated?

State’s Response:

One free landline POS device is provided to exempted retailers. Wireless free POS device is not provided to Farmers Market. (Approval from the state and Change Request allowed EBT vendor to provide wireless device to Farmers Market). The State pays for the device deployment and the monthly transactions. The FNS grant will expire on September 30th, 2021. After that the Farmers Market has the option to sign up directly with our vendor CDE to use the wireless device that has been paid for by the State and just pay for the transactions.

RFP Reference: P.53 Section: III. SNAP Requirements #77, Page 57 There doesn’t appear to be a section IV.1.2.15. Please clarify the section reference where additional details are provided on the required number of POS devices for exempt EBT-only retailers.

State’s Response See Section IV.16 of the RFP (Page 105) RFP Reference: P.101 Section: III. SNAP Requirements #77, Page 58 This paragraph refers to performance standards that are to be included in Section II.B, however no performance standards are defined in that section. Would the State provide the performance standards which will apply to the contract that will result from this procurement?

State’s Response The State has attached the performance standards to the RFP posted as Amendment 4 (pp. 47 – 48), Table 15.

RFP Reference: N/A Section: SNAP Requirements #102, Page 68 Is it the State’s intent for the $40 for stand in processing of SNAP purchases to cover $40 per day per case per retailer or $40 per day per case?

State’s Response Currently for SC EBT, the limit for Stand-in Processing is $40 per cardholder, per retailer, per day.

RFP Reference: P.65 Section: III. SNAP Requirements #121, Page 74 Please provide a current sample of the Card Mail Date Report.

State’s Response See Table 4 Below RFP Reference: N/A

Table 4 Sample of Card Mail Date Report Section: III. SNAP Requirements #140, Page 77 Please provide the document or the URL that describes the components of the State Project Management Methodology to which the contractor is required to comply.

State’s Response:

The state is modifying “state project management methodology” from item #140 of the solicitation document to read: “a project management methodology”.

RFP Reference: P.74 , ITEM# 141 Section: Cash Benefits Programs, Page 86 Would the State please provide the following statistics related to South Carolina’s debit card program?

a. Monthly case counts for the past 12 months for the TANF program

b. Monthly case counts for the past 12 months for SNAP E&T Transportation and any other component payment programs

c. Monthly accounts for the past 12 months for the Foster Board & Adoption Subsidy payments program

d. Monthly Foster Board & Adoption Subsidy payments made in the past 12 months via direct deposit

e. Monthly Foster Board & Adoption Subsidy payments made in the past 12 months by debit cards

f. Monthly Child Care Provider payments made in the past 12 months via direct deposit

g. Monthly Child Care Provider payments made in the past 12 months by debit cards State’s Response Monthly case counts for the past 12 months for the TANF program:

a. Average TANF caseload for the past 12 months (July 2020 – June 2021) equates to; 8,570.

b. Monthly case counts for the past 12 months for SNAP E&T Transportation and any other component payment programs:

This program is not currently done on the debit card; this would be new functionality for this contract period.

Average number of accounts for Foster Care & Adoption Subsidy payments for the past 12 months equates to 8,819

c. Monthly Foster Board & Adoption Subsidy payments made in the past 12 months via direct deposit

d. Monthly Foster Board & Adoption Subsidy payments made in the past 12 months by debit cards

e. Monthly Child Care Provider payments made in the past 12 months via direct deposit

f. Monthly Child Care Provider payments made in the past 12 months by debit cards Questions C – F, see tablesb5 and 6 below

Foster Board and Adoption Subsidy Payments

Cards

Table 5 Foster Board and Adoption Subsidy Payments RFP Reference: N/A

Child Care Provider Payments

Cards

Table 6 Child Care Provider Payments Section: III. SNAP Requirements #172, Page 85 The RFP states that the conversion must be completed on or before March 31, 2022. Given that the new contract award is to be made on September 29, 2021, followed by possible contract negotiations and a 60-day FNS contract approval window, only the incumbent would be able to meet the March 31, 2022 date. Please clarify if the State intends to modify this timeframe, and if so, what would the revised contract conversion date be?

State’s Response Yes, the state has modified the time-frame to March 31, 2023.

RFP Reference: P.82 Amendment 3 Reference: p.4, ITEM# 6 Section: Cash Benefits Programs, Page 86 Would the State please provide the following statistics related to South Carolina’s debit card program?

Monthly case counts for the past 12 months for the TANF program Monthly case counts for the past 12 months for SNAP E&T Transportation and any other component payment programs Monthly accounts for the past 12 months for the Foster Board & Adoption Subsidy payments program Monthly Foster Board & Adoption Subsidy payments made in the past 12 months via direct deposit Monthly Foster Board & Adoption Subsidy payments made in the past 12 months by debit cards Monthly Child Care Provider payments made in the past 12 months via direct deposit Monthly Child Care Provider payments made in the past 12 months by debit cards State’s Response:

Monthly case counts for the past 12 months for the TANF program:

(a) Average TANF caseload for the past 12 months (July 2020 – June 2021) equates to; 8,570.

Monthly case counts for the past 12 months for SNAP E&T Transportation and any other component payment programs:

This program is not currently done on the debit card; this would be new functionality for this contract period.

Average number of accounts for Foster Care & Adoption Subsidy payments for the past 12 months equates to 8,819 Monthly Foster Board & Adoption Subsidy payments made in the past 12 months via direct deposit Monthly Foster Board & Adoption Subsidy payments made in the past 12 months by debit cards Monthly Child Care Provider payments made in the past 12 months via direct deposit Monthly Child Care Provider payments made in the past 12 months by debit cards For answers to C – F, see tables 5 and 6 below

Cards

Table 7 Foster Board & Adoption Subsidy payments made in the past 12 months via direct deposit and Debit

Child Care Provider Payments

Cards

Table 8 Monthly Child Care Provider payments - past 12 months via direct deposit and Debit

Section: Cash Benefits Programs, Page 86, Please provide the current Debit Card Cardholder Fee Schedule.

State’s Response This information is not germane to the current solicitation.

RFP Reference: N/A Section: III. SNAP Requirements #201, Page 93 This first bullet of this paragraph states that the Contractor is obligated to meet the minimum standards defined in the solicitation for the Help Desk. Please provide these minimum standards.

State’s Response #201 on page 93 begins, The Contractor must provide a Recipient Help Desk that meets or exceeds the following service requirements (standards) It is followed by five bullet points that describe the service requirements.

RFP Reference: p. 90 Section: III. Pricing Specifications #8, Page 98 This item indicates that South Carolina has chosen to wait to implement online food purchase capabilities. However, according to the FNS website, South Carolina is participating in the online purchasing pilot and currently has 5 internet retailers certified. Would the State please clarify the current status of its online shopping program and the expectation for the awarded Contractor?

State’s Response USDA FNS approved South Carolina for the implementation of Expedited Online Purchasing Option for SNAP due to COVID -19 and the National Emergency declared in March 2020. Currently, South Carolina has online EBT purchasing for five national grocery chains.

Section: III. Installation, Operational Manuals, Technical Support-Included, and Training, Page 100 Would the State please clarify if these sections are to be responded to even though they don’t include complete requirement statements?

State’s Response These clauses have been removed from the RFP Installation, Operational Manuals, Technical Support-Included, and Training.

RFP Reference: N/A Section: IV. (III) Technical Proposal #5. Mail Issuance and Delivery Timeframe Requirements for Cards and 7. Replacement Card Timeframe Requirements, Page 102 – 103 The requirements of Question #5 and Question #7 are nearly identical except #5 applies to initial card issuance and #7 applies to replacement card issuance. Once a card request (either initial or replacement) is received, the process, facilities and timeframes to produce and distribute the cards is the same. Would the State consider keeping only one of these questions and clarifying the response is to apply to both initial and replacement cards?

State’s Response No, the State would like to differentiate the cards.

RFP Reference: p.98 Section: IV. (III) Technical Proposal 19. Administrative Application Training, Page 106 Could the State describe the specific event or issue that it requires prior notification of as referenced in this question? Is this question asking about notifications for maintenance windows, system changes, application enhancements, or something else?

State’s Response:

Planned training RFP Reference: N/A Section: IV. (III) Technical Proposal 43. Point-By-Point Response, Page 108 The Point-By-Point Response paragraph states that a…