RFI Document _ SNAP Rate Reduction.pdf

Revised 10/12/18 1 of 5 SPD-PS014

State of Georgia State Entity: Georgia Department of Human Services

Request for Information (RFI)

Event Name: Formal Verification and Other Methods for SNAP Error Rate Reduction

RFI (Event) Number: PE-42700-RFI-2026-000000012

1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose of Procurement

This Request for Information (“RFI”) is being issued to solicit information from interested suppliers with respect to Formal Verification and Other Methods for SNAP Error Rate Reduction for the Georgia

Department of Human Services (hereinafter, “the State Entity”) as further described in this RFI. The

State Entity will use the information generated by this RFI in conjunction with other information available to the State Entity to determine the solution that is in the best interest of the State Entity to fulfill this need.

The Georgia Department of Human Services (DHS) administers eligibility determinations for the

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, 7 C.F.R. Part 273), Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF), Medicaid and CHIP (42 C.F.R. Parts 430–456), the Child Care and Development Fund

(CCDF/CAPS, 45 C.F.R. Parts 98–99), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC, 7 C.F.R. Part 246) through the Georgia Gateway integrated eligibility system.

DHS is issuing this RFI with a specific focus on reducing Georgia’s SNAP Payment Error Rate. The SNAP

Payment Error Rate has direct financial consequences for the State. DHS seeks to identify innovative operational models that have demonstrably reduced SNAP error rates in other states or jurisdictions and that can be practically applied within Georgia’s existing eligibility environment.

The primary objective of this RFI is not to survey theoretical or research-stage approaches. DHS is specifically seeking respondents who have implemented an error-reduction model, whether through formal verification of eligibility logic, rules engine modernization, automated case review, QC-targeted workflow redesign, or other demonstrated methodology, in a production environment in at least one other state or jurisdiction, and who can provide concrete evidence of the outcome.

1.2. Overview of the RFI Process

The objective of the RFI is to gather information to assist the State Entity in its consideration of available resources/methods to fulfill the need/goal identified above. The RFI method is not a competitive solicitation method and, as a result, does not satisfy the requirement for competitive bidding. The RFI method is no more than an information gathering tool and such information gathered may or may not be used by the

State Entity to develop a competitive solicitation. Suppliers are not required to respond to an RFI and a supplier’s failure to respond to an RFI will not prohibit the supplier’s participation in any competitive solicitation that may result from the RFI. However, suppliers are strongly encouraged to respond to RFIs as this is a great way to ensure the State Entity is aware of the suppliers’ available goods and services.

1.3. Schedule of Events

The schedule of events set out herein represent the State Entity’s best estimate of the schedule that will be followed. However, delays to the procurement process may occur which may necessitate adjustments to the proposed schedule. If a component of this schedule, such as the close date, is delayed, the rest of the schedule may be shifted as appropriate. Any changes to the dates up to the closing date of the RFI will be publicly posted prior to the closing date of this RFI. After the close of the RFI, the State Entity reserves the right to adjust the remainder of the proposed dates on an as needed basis with or without notice.

Revised 10/12/18 2 of 5 SPD-PS014

Description Date Time

Release of RFI As Published on the Georgia

Procurement Registry (“GPR”)

See GPR

Informational Conference Location:

As Published on the GPR See GPR

Deadline to Submit Written Questions Monday, June 22, 2026 5:00 p.m. ET

Responses to Written Questions Friday, June 26, 2026 5:00 p.m. ET

Deadline for Submitting Responses Tuesday, July 7, 2026 See GPR

1.4. Official Issuing Officer (Buyer)

Addrenna Latham

Addrenna.latham@dhs.ga.gov

1.5. Definition of Terms

Please review the following terms:

Supplier(s) – companies desiring to do business with the State of Georgia.

State Entity – the governmental entity identified in Section 1.1 “Purpose of Solicitation” of this RFI.

Any special terms or words which are not identified in this State Entity RFI Document may be identified separately in one or more attachments to the RFI. Please download, save and carefully review all documents in accordance with the instructions provided in Section 2 “Instructions to Suppliers” of this RFI.

2. Instructions to Offerors

By submitting a response to the RFI, the Offeror is acknowledging that the Offeror:

1. Has read the information and instructions,

2. Agrees to comply with the information and instructions contained herein.

2.1. General Information and Instructions

2.1.1. Submitting Questions

All questions concerning this RFI must be submitted in writing via email to the Issuing Officer identified in Section 1.4 “Issuing Officer” of this RFI. Do not use the comments section within the sourcing tool to submit questions to the issuing officer.

2.1.2. State’s Right to Amend and/or Cancel the RFI

The State Entity reserves the right to amend this RFI. Any revisions must be made in writing prior to the RFI closing date and time. By submitting a response, the supplier shall be deemed to have accepted all terms and agreed to all requirements of the RFI (including any revisions/additions made in writing prior to the close of the RFI whether or not such revision occurred prior to the time the supplier submitted its response) unless expressly stated otherwise in the supplier’s response.

THEREFORE, EACH SUPPLIER IS INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING THE

REVISED RFI AND MAKING ANY NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE CHANGES AND/OR

ADDITIONS TO THE SUPPLIER’S RESPONSE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE RFI. Suppliers are encouraged to frequently check the RFI for additional information. Finally, the State Entity reserves the right to cancel this RFI at any time.

2.1.3. Costs for Preparing Responses

Each response should be prepared simply and economically, avoiding the use of elaborate promotional materials beyond those sufficient to provide a complete presentation. The cost for developing the response and participating in this RFI process is the sole responsibility of the supplier. The State will not provide reimbursement for such costs.

Revised 10/12/18 3 of 5 SPD-PS014

2.1.4. ADA Guidelines

The State of Georgia adheres to the guidelines set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Suppliers should contact the Issuing Officer at least one day in advance if they require special arrangements when attending the Informational Conference (if any). The Georgia Relay Center at

1-800-255-0056 (TDD Only) or 1-800-255-0135 (Voice) will relay messages, in strict confidence, for the speech and hearing impaired.

2.1.5. Public Access to Procurement Records

Solicitation opportunities will be publicly advertised as required by law and the provisions of the

Georgia Procurement Manual. The State Entity is allowed to assess a reasonable charge to defray the cost of reproducing documents. A state employee should be present during the time of onsite inspection of documents. PLEASE NOTE: Even though information (financial or other information) submitted by a supplier may be marked as "confidential", "proprietary", etc., the State will make its own determination regarding what information may or may not be withheld from disclosure.

2.1.6. Registered Lobbyists

By submitting a response to this RFI, the supplier hereby certifies that the supplier and its lobbyists are in compliance with the Lobbyist Registration Requirements in accordance with the Georgia

Procurement Manual.

2.2. Submittal Instructions

Listed below are key action items related to this RFI. The Schedule of Events in Section 1.3 identifies the dates and time for these key action items. This portion of the RFI provides instructions regarding the process for reviewing the RFI, preparing a response to the RFI and submitting a response to the RFI.

2.2.1. RFI Released

The release of this RFI is formally communicated through the posting of this RFI on the Georgia

Procurement Registry, which is accessible online as follows:

http://ssl.doas.state.ga.us/PRSapp/PR_index.jsp

2.2.2. RFI Review

The RFI consists of the following:

1. This document, entitled “The State Entity RFI Document”, and

2. Any and all documents provided by the State Entity as attachments to the RFI or links contained within the RFI or its attached documents.

Please carefully review all information contained in the RFI, including all documents available as attachments or available through links. Any difficulty accessing the RFI or opening provided links or documents should be reported immediately to the Issuing Officer (See Section 1.4).

2.2.3. Preparing a Response

When preparing a response, the supplier must consider the following instructions:

1. Ensure its response is accurate and readily understandable.

2. Clearly label attachments so that the State Entity can easily organize and navigate the supplier’s response.

2.2.4. “Hard Copy” and Electronic Copies Required

Supplier must provide the following number of copies:

• 0 hard copies

• 0 CD-ROM copies.

http://ssl.doas.state.ga.us/PRSapp/PR_index.jsp

Revised 10/12/18 4 of 5 SPD-PS014

2.2.5. Electronic Copies

1. Use caution in creating electronic files (i.e., make sure files do not contain viruses, etc.).

2. Use commonly accepted software programs to create electronic files. The State Entity has the capability of viewing documents submitted in the following format: Microsoft Word or WordPad, Microsoft Excel, portable document format file (PDF), and plain text files with the file extension noted in parentheses (.txt).

2.2.6. Submitting the Response

E-Mail responses to:

Addrenna.Latham@dhs.ga.gov Electronic submissions only

Subject Line: Formal Verification and Other Methods for SNAP Error Rate Reduction

Reference: Name of Company

Point of Contact for Company and Phone Number

RFI# PE-42700-RFI-2026-000000012

3. Requested Information

The Georgia Department of Human Services invites responses to the following questions. Respondents who have not implemented an operational error-reduction model in at least one other state or jurisdiction are encouraged to indicate this clearly rather than describing theoretical or research-stage capabilities.

Partial responses are welcome. Responses will be treated as public records subject to disclosure under

Georgia’s Open Records Act.

Demonstrated Implementation Track Record

1. Has your organization implemented an operational model that demonstrably reduced the SNAP

Payment Error Rate or materially improved eligibility determination accuracy for SNAP? If so, identify the state(s) or jurisdiction(s), describe the model implemented, the scope of deployment, and the timeline from engagement initiation to full operational status.

2. Describe the specific mechanism by which your model reduces SNAP errors. Is the intervention at the rules layer (eligibility logic correctness), the workflow layer (case review, QC integration, worker decision support), the data layer (income verification, third-party data matching), or a combination? Be specific about where errors are caught or prevented.

3. For each prior implementation you describe, what was the measured impact on the SNAP Payment

Error Rate before and after deployment? Please provide quantitative outcome data wherever available, including baseline error rate, post-implementation error rate, measurement period, and the FNA QC methodology used to assess the change.

4. For each prior implementation, describe the implementation approach: the engagement model (state staff, vendor-led, co-development), the integration points with the state’s existing eligibility system, the data access requirements, and any significant implementation challenges encountered and how they were resolved.

5. Can the states or jurisdictions where you have previously implemented this model be contacted as references? If so, please provide the appropriate point of contact. If prior engagements are subject to confidentiality restrictions that limit disclosure, please indicate the nature of those restrictions.

Efficiency and Implementation Readiness

6. What is your typical implementation timeline from contract execution to a model that is operational and producing measurable error-reduction outcomes? Describe the key phases and milestones, and identify the factors that most commonly extend or compress this timeline.

7. What are the prerequisites for a successful implementation of your model? Describe the data access requirements, technical integration dependencies, state staffing commitments, policy decisions, and any other conditions that must be in place for your approach to function as intended.

Revised 10/12/18 5 of 5 SPD-PS014

8. How does your model integrate with a Java-based integrated eligibility system such as Georgia

Gateway? Describe the integration architecture and any prior experience integrating with systems of comparable type, age, or vendor origin.

9. What is your assessment of the implementation risk profile for your model in a state with an established legacy eligibility system? What are the most common points of failure in implementations of this type, and how do you mitigate them?

Proof of Concept Capability

10. Is your organization willing and able to demonstrate a proof of concept applied to Georgia’s eligibility data and policy environment as part of a competitive procurement process? If so, describe what such a demonstration would entail, what data access and State cooperation would be required, and what a realistic demonstration timeline looks like.

11. Describe what a meaningful proof of concept for your model looks like in practice. What outcomes or behaviors would the proof of concept demonstrate, and how would success be measured? What aspects of your model’s error-reduction effectiveness can be validated in a bounded proof of concept versus requiring full deployment to observe?

12. Have you previously conducted a proof of concept or pilot in a state prior to full-scale implementation?

If so, describe the scope, duration, and what the proof of concept established that informed the decision to proceed to full deployment.

SNAP Error Rate and Quality Control Familiarity

13. Describe your organization’s familiarity with the USDA FNA Quality Control (QC) process for SNAP, including the sampling methodology, error classification categories (overpayment, underpayment, negative action), the role of state QC reviews and federal re-reviews, and the error rate calculation and sanction liability framework under 7 U.S.C. § 2025(c).

14. Which error categories in the SNAP QC framework does your model most directly address? Are there error types—such as client-reported income changes, categorically eligible households, or complex household composition changes—that your model does not address or addresses less effectively?

15. How does your model account for the distinction between agency error and client error in the SNAP QC framework? Does your model address both, and if so, by different mechanisms?

Organizational Qualifications

16. Describe your organization’s relevant qualifications for this engagement, including the number and type of state SNAP eligibility system engagements completed, staff expertise in SNAP policy and QC methodology, and any FNA or federal agency relationships relevant to this work.

17. Describe any relevant contract vehicles, state master contracts, or procurement registrations your organization holds that would be applicable to a Georgia DHS procurement. Is your organization currently under contract with any other state for SNAP error rate reduction services?

18. Would your organization be interested in participating in a competitive procurement for SNAP error rate reduction services if DHS determines that such an engagement is warranted? Are there aspects of scope, contract structure, or procurement vehicle that would significantly affect your organization’s ability or interest in competing?

The State Entity may, at its discretion, ask one or more suppliers to provide additional information and/or meet with the State Entity to further discuss the supplier’s information.

5. List of RFI Attachments

The following documents make up this RFI. Please see Section 2.2.2 “RFI Review” for instructions about how to access the following documents. Any difficulty locating or accessing the following documents should be immediately reported to the Issuing Officer.

A. State Entity RFI (this document)

B. Special Term Definitions from Section 1.5 “Definition of Terms” of this RFI