A02 - Updated CNPP Food Price PWS Revised 20240530 (003).pdf

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Performance Work Statement

Contents Project Title General Information

1.0 Background and Purpose

2.0 Definitions

Contractor Requirements

3.0 Technical Requirements / Tasks

3.1 Scope and Objectives

3.2 Tasks and Deliverables

4.0 Deliverable / Schedule

5.0 Government Furnished

6.0 Travel

7.0 Contractor’s Key Personnel

8.0 Security Requirements

9.0 Data Rights

10.0 Section 508 - Electronic and Information Technology Standards

11.0 Performance Requirement Measures

References

Project Title Food Price Data Collection in the Non-Contiguous States and U.S. Territories

General Information

1.0 Background and Purpose

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) uses information on current food prices for several applications related to research, policy, and consumer education. An important application of data on food prices is in calculating cost adjustments to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) to reflect the food prices in specific areas of the country as required by law. The TFP represents a nutritious, practical, and cost-effective diet and Federal law (7 USC §2012(u)) specifies that the cost of the TFP in June serves as the basis for setting maximum Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit allotments in the following Federal fiscal year beginning each October 1 (Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2021). In July 2023, FNS published the Thrifty Food Plan Cost Estimates for Alaska and Hawaii report, which used Circana retail scanner data (formerly IRI InfoScan) from 2017 to calculate the difference in the price of food in Anchorage, Alaska and Honolulu, Hawaii compared to the 48 States and D.C. in alignment with the current statutory and regulatory framework (Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2023). To conduct this analysis, FNS calculated inflation-adjusted average unit prices for over 11,000 products identified by Universal Product Codes (UPCs) in the retail scanner data from over 40,000 stores in the 48 States and D.C., 20 stores in Anchorage, and 32 stores in Honolulu, representing billions of transactions across the year.

As FNS has previously documented, the retail scanner data reflects the best source of information on food prices currently available to FNS that can be used to adjust the cost of the TFP to reflect local food prices (Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2023). However, these data are comprised of a nonrandom sample of primarily larger stores, with smaller, independent stores and regional chains generally underrepresented (Muth, et al. 2016). As a result, data in specific locations; particularly in the U.S. Territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; can be limited. Because of the nonrandom sample of stores and the level of aggregation at which the data is expected to be made accessible to FNS in the future (i.e., limiting future analyses in ways that were not faced in FNS’ previous analysis of 2017 scanner data), there is also uncertainty whether these data could support the calculation of reliable, representative estimates of food prices in the non-contiguous States and U.S. Territories in the future (i.e., post-2017).

In January 2024, FNS published a Request for Information (RFI), inviting comments and ideas about food price data for the State of Hawaii that may be available, potentially accessible to FNS, and of sufficient quality, format, sample size, and recent period to be used potentially by FNS to make cost adjustments for the State of Hawaii to the TFP (Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2024). The comments received indicated that no sufficient alternatives to retail scanner data are currently available but that retailers and other stakeholders throughout the State of Hawaii are generally supportive of the prospect of new Federally-supported data collection efforts in this space. In response to the comments received, FNS aims to improve the quantity and quality of available food price data in Hawaii as well as in Alaska and the U.S. Territories. Having access to high quality food price data will support FNS in tailoring research, policy, and consumer education efforts to meet local needs and advance nutrition security in these places.

USDA has previously used household surveys to fill food price information gaps. For example, the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) included supplemental data collections in Alaska (Science and Education Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981), Hawaii (Science and Education Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981), and Puerto Rico (Human Nutrition Information Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1982). The primary benefit of household surveys is that information on food purchases can be directly linked to individual and/or household characteristics. The limitations of household surveys are that they are expensive and involve substantial resources to collect reliable data, can be burdensome for respondents (potentially compromising data quality), and are potentially subject to several sources of bias and error (e.g., social desirability bias, recall bias, etc.). Recent household-based data collections, including the Nationwide Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS) and the Consumer Network Panel, have not included households residing in the non-contiguous States or U.S. Territories.

It has also been recommended that FNS could conduct primary data collection of prices of a predetermined list of food items from a sample of vendors in areas of particular interest (Wroblewska, et al. 2021). The benefits of store surveys are that food and beverage prices posted in stores are public information, meaning there is no burden on retailers when price quotes are collected and there are fewer concerns regarding sensitive, proprietary, or personally identifiable information when publishing results. Store surveys are also relatively simple to plan and design and can be carried out at retailers that tend to be underrepresented in other data sources (e.g., stores in rural and remote areas and stores without scanner systems at checkout). There are, however, several critical limitations of store surveys, including the high cost per price quote recorded and reliance on excellent training to ensure that data collectors properly carry out the survey protocol as intended. Recording prices for each of the predetermined food items in-store can take multiple hours for a single vendor, creating challenges when attempting to scale this approach up to include a large enough sample as to be representative of an entire State or Territory. For this same reason, it is also not possible for a store survey to capture the same comprehensive breadth of products that are available in retail scanner data or large household surveys; the set of items that could be included in a feasible store survey would be orders of magnitude less than would be available in these alternative approaches. It is also challenging to create a list of specific foods that are expected to be available in all stores that are sampled without extensive piloting, which increases the cost of collection. Further, prices on the shelf may not necessarily reflect prices paid by consumers if there is not a careful accounting for factors such as coupons and sales.

FNS might also leverage administrative data to better understand food prices in the non-contiguous States and U.S.

Territories, particularly in the collection of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) data recorded under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Foods and beverages included in WIC food packages1 overlap considerably with the foods and beverages included in the TFP; it is possible that prices for WIC-eligible foods and beverages may be an effective proxy for prices for foods and beverages in the TFP. However, because quantity information for fruit and vegetable redemptions is not captured in WIC EBT data, these data do not provide information on unit prices of fruits and vegetables. In addition, there is only a very limited set of seafood products (canned seafood) and practically no meat included in the WIC package. These categories make up a significant share of the cost of the TFP which limits the applicability of WIC data to the TFP. Finally, variation in product availability and WIC cost containment policies across WIC State agencies might bias price comparisons across States and/or Territories if not carefully accounted for. It is also possible that price dynamics for WIC-eligible foods systematically differ from those of non-WIC-eligible foods within the same category, potentially biasing results.

As previously mentioned, several responses to the RFI indicated that retailers in the State of Hawaii were open to providing sales and/or price data to FNS to support the calculation of the cost of the TFP in the State. It is possible that retailers in Alaska and the U.S. Territories would be similarly open to such data submissions. If this is the case, FNS could periodically request sales and/or price data directly from retailers. These data could be functionally similar to the Circana retail scanner data that FNS currently accesses but would require additional resources to compile, standardize and document. This approach could be limited if retailers, particularly smaller, independent retailers, do not have systems in place to track, store, and transmit such data, and could also be limited if only a nonrepresentative set of retailers opt to participate.

Other approaches of obtaining food price data have been used elsewhere in the literature, including querying retailer application programming interfaces (API) for current food prices in local markets (Germino, et al. 2023) and developing automated procedures for collecting current food price information from retailer web pages in accordance with their respective terms of service or in accordance with separate written agreement with the retailer (i.e., web scraping) (Cavallo and Rigobon 2016). These approaches enable the collection of a high volume of food price data with no or little burden to retailers. However, these approaches are not able to capture prices at retailers that do not make their prices

1 WIC food packages include infant formula, milk and milk alternatives, eggs, legumes (i.e., dried beans, canned beans, and peanut butter), canned fish, cereal, whole-wheat/whole-grain bread and other whole grains, 100% fruit juice, infant foods, and fruits and vegetables.

available online and certain retailers who make their prices available online may restrict the use of the data or prohibit automated means of accessing it.

An important consideration regarding food price data in the non-contiguous States and U.S. Territories is the representativeness of the data. No standard benchmark currently exists for determining whether a food price data source is sufficiently representative of a given locality, however, FNS has previously assessed this topic by considering the number of stores and volume of sales covered in comparison to the total universe of stores and sales in the locality (e.g., by comparing to relevant data from the U.S. Census Bureau) and in comparison to other available food price data sources (Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2023). The development and application of a standardized approach for determining the extent to which a food price data source is sufficiently representative would benefit future data collection and analysis efforts, including this study.

2.0 Definitions

API – Application Programming Interface EBT – Electronic Benefit Transfer FNS – Food and Nutrition Service FoodAPS – Nationwide Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey IRI – Information Resources, Incorporated NFCS – Nationwide Food Consumption Survey OMB – Office of Management and Budget RFI – Request for Information TFP – Thrifty Food Plan UPC – Universal Product Code USDA – United States Department of Agriculture WIC – Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children

Contractor Requirements

3.0 Technical Requirements / Tasks

FNS seeks a Contractor to plan and execute a food price data collection that is sufficiently representative of each non-contiguous State and U.S. Territory from which data are collected. Offerors should consider the potential approaches described above as well as other potential approaches in submitting proposals. The Contractor will have an opportunity to refine their proposed approach throughout the course of the study and to integrate lessons learned from test cases as described in the sections that follow.

3.1 Scope and Objectives

The contractor shall conduct a research study that answers the following research question: What are the prices of foods and beverages in the TFP market basket2 in each of the non-contiguous States and U.S. Territories?

The contractor shall perform all activities related to conducting the research study, including:

• Conducting all necessary tasks to manage the scope of the research study.

• Integrating expertise in the field of economics and local food retail environments to develop a detailed plan for collecting representative price data for foods and beverages in each of the non-contiguous States and U.S.

Territories, including obtaining OMB Clearance for the information collection if necessary.

• Delivering the collected data and associated documentation, reporting on the statistical properties of the data collected, including the extent to which it is representative of each of the non-contiguous States and U.S.

Territories and the TFP market basket, and identifying areas for future research.

The Contractor may propose activities in addition to those listed above that would improve the ability of the research study to answer the research question listed above.

2 See https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/usda-food-plans for additional information on the content of the TFP market basket https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/usda-food-plans

3.2 Tasks and Deliverables

The tasks and deliverables listed here are required minimums. The Contractor may add to the tasks as necessary to support the proposed study plan offered in their technical proposal. Prior to submission to FNS, all versions of deliverables, including the initial drafts, shall be in final form and have undergone a thorough quality review process that adheres to the contractor’s quality control plan. The Contractor shall submit a cover memo with each deliverable that lists the personnel that reviewed the deliverable. In addition, all deliverables shall be consistent with the requirements of the most recent version of the Government Printing Office Style Manual. When multiple versions are necessary, each subsequent version shall be reflective of FNS’s feedback, as well as peer review feedback if appropriate, on the prior version and include a separate, track-changes version or spreadsheet that documents the changes made in response to FNS feedback along with any additional changes made by the Contractor since the prior version and justification for any comments made by FNS or peer reviewers that were not incorporated into the revised version. The Contractor shall provide FNS a minimum of two (2) weeks of review for every 25 pages. The Contractor shall establish a means of secure file transfer between the Contractor and FNS to facilitate the transmission of deliverables; FNS information technology systems will not be available to the Contractor.

This research study is to be conducted in three phases: (1) management and planning, (2) data collection, and (3) reporting. Tasks associated with each phase are briefly listed below and are described in detail in the sections that follow.

Management and Planning The first phase of the research study is to establish project management processes, to plan the approach for collecting food price data in the study’s second phase, and, if appropriate based on the approach identified, to obtain OMB clearance.

• Task 1: Project Management

• Task 2: Study Plan

• Task 3: Proof of Concept

• Optional Task 4: Obtain OMB Clearance

Data Collection The second phase of the research study is to collect food price data in the non-contiguous States and U.S. Territories.

Each optional task under this phase is specific to a State or U.S. territory where the Contractor shall collect representative food price data. At a minimum, the Contractor shall collect sufficiently representative food price data in the State of Hawaii, with data collection in Alaska and the U.S. Territories being included in the research study subject to funding availability and the Contractor’s study plan and price proposal. FNS’ intent is for all exercised optional tasks to be completed simultaneously, however, they may be exercised sequentially depending on the Contractor’s study plan (Task 2) and available funds. The data collected should be sufficiently representative of each State and U.S. Territory, with the exact quantity of data collected and the period over and frequency with which data are collected to be determined by the Contractor in their study plan.

• Task 5: Data Collection in Hawaii

• Optional Task 6: Data Collection in Alaska

• Optional Task 7: Data Collection in Puerto Rico

• Optional Task 8: Data Collection in Guam

• Optional Task 9: Data Collection in the U.S. Virgin Islands

• Optional Task 10: Data Collection in American Samoa

• Optional Task 11: Data Collection in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Reporting

The third phase of the research study is to report on the food price data collected and to deliver the food price data and associated code and documentation to FNS.

• Task 12: Final Report

• Task 13: Data Files, Code, and Documentation

• Task 14: Final Briefing

Task 1: Project Management The Contractor shall conduct all necessary tasks to manage the scope of projects.

Project Orientation Meeting: Within 10 calendar days of award, the Contractor will schedule a virtual project orientation meeting to discuss the contractor’s technical approach and establish a mutual understanding of project objectives, research questions, and proposed methods. The contractor, in consultation with the FNS COR, shall prepare and provide an agenda to FNS at least 48 hours prior to the meeting (Deliverable 1.1: Orientation Meeting Agenda). The meeting shall cover items including but not limited to the following:

• An overview of the contractor’s approach for addressing the project’s objectives;

• A description of the project schedule, including all tasks to be performed, and a discussion of the proposed schedule of deliverables with a timeline;

• A clarification of all project activities and tasks; and

• Establishing official protocols for all project communication, substantive and financial reporting requirements and procedures for the approval of contract deliverables.

Within one (1) week after the orientation meeting, the Contractor shall submit to FNS a draft memorandum summarizing the orientation meeting. This summary memorandum shall include all issues discussed at the meeting, the conclusions reached, and any issues remaining to be resolved. FNS will provide comments on the draft version of the memo. The final project orientation summary memorandum is due no later than one (1) week after receiving comments on the draft version of the memo.

Biweekly Meetings: The contractor will propose a schedule for biweekly (i.e., every other week) meetings to update Federal staff on progress and issues. Meetings will be held via Microsoft Teams. Key contractor staff, sub-contractor staff, and/or consultants will participate as needed to address progress and issues for discussion.

• The schedule for meetings may be changed as agreed upon by the COR.

• The contractor will submit a proposed agenda for each meeting at least one (1) working day in advance of the scheduled date to the COR for comment.

• If there are materials that Federal staff will need to review prior to the meeting date, such materials will be submitted at least three (3) business days in advance of the meeting date.

• The contractor will submit a summary of meeting discussions to the COR for review and approval no more than one (1) working day after each regular meeting.

Monthly Progress Reports: Each month, the Contractor shall prepare and submit monthly progress reports to the FNS COR using an FNS-approved format by the 10th of each month, beginning the month following the contract award and continuing for the duration of the performance period. Each report shall include a:

• Cover page with contract name, number, award date, period of performance covered by the report and number in the sequence of monthly reports;

• Description of activities, by subtask(s), that were carried out during the reporting period and staff involved in completing the task(s);

• Clear description of any technical problems or issues, along with proposed steps to resolve them;

• Clear description of any contractual problems or issues, including delays encountered, along with proposed steps to resolve them;

• Description of activities by subtask, planned for the next reporting period including dates; and

• Project schedule that shows, by subtask and deliverable, the dates on which work started, was expected to end and actually ended.

• Table listing all project deliverables in the first column, due dates listed in the contract in the second column, the date submitted to the COR in the third column, the date accepted by the COR in the fourth column, and the date the invoice was submitted in the fifth column;

• All monthly progress reports shall be submitted in electronic format. All progress reports shall be submitted directly to the COR and to the Contracting Officer. In addition, the Contractor shall notify the COR, by phone or e-mail, of any schedule delays.

USDA Records Management Training: The Contractor’s Program Manager (PM) / Project Lead and deputy (if applicable), or equivalent staff as determined by the Contractor, will complete paper-based USDA Records Management Training. The COR will provide the Contractor with the necessary training material. The Contractor will submit to the COR completed quizzes and acknowledgements within 60 days of receiving the necessary training material. Once the Contractor’s staff have earned an 80% or higher score, the COR will provide the Contractor with course completion certificate(s). Thereafter, it is the responsibility of the PM to convey USDA Records Management requirements to the Contractor’s staff and to provide notification to the COR that this internal training has been completed. Thereafter, if the Contractor has a record that must be submitted to FNS, it will be submitted through the PM, deputy, or equivalent staff as determined by the Contractor. USDA Records Management Training must be completed annually.

The following deliverables will be delivered under this Task:

• Deliverable 1.1: Project Orientation Meeting Agenda

• Deliverable 1.2: Draft Project Orientation Meeting Summary Memorandum

• Deliverable 1.3: Final Project Orientation Meeting Summary Memorandum

• Deliverable 1.4: Biweekly Meeting Agendas and Notes

• Deliverable 1.5: Monthly Progress Reports

• Deliverable 1.6: USDA Records Management Training

Task 2: Study Plan The Contractor shall update the study plan offered in their technical proposal and submit a complete study plan that further details their approach for addressing the scope of work, including the Contractor’s plans to (1) collect food price data in the non-contiguous States and U.S. Territories and (2) assess the representativeness of the collected food price data. The study plan in the technical proposal shall clearly state how the study objectives will be accomplished and the technical expertise needed to address the study objectives and research questions. The Contractor shall incorporate input from experts in the development of the study plan, ideally those with experience collecting and assessing the representativeness of data using the approaches identified who have not previously collaborated with FNS on such topics in recent years and those with subject matter expertise in the food environments of the non-contiguous States and U.S. Territories. The Contractor must ensure that such experts are free from potential conflicts of interest and must provide documentation of their assessment of potential conflicts of interest.

In identifying an approach to collect food price data, the Contractor should consider how existing approaches to collecting food price data (i.e., household and store surveys) can be tailored to collect sufficiently representative food price data in the non-contiguous States and U.S. Territories and the strengths and limitations of such approaches. The Contractor should also consider alternative and/or innovative approaches that would support a larger sample size and/or a more efficient data collection process than existing approaches (e.g., web scraping or other approaches). To the extent possible, the Contractor should prioritize innovative approaches over existing approaches, and approaches that would provide food prices that are compatible with food prices calculated using retail scanner data (i.e., by collecting food prices at the UPC-level and by recording store type information). If proposing an approach that would not yield average unit prices that are compatible with those calculated using retail scanner data, the Contractor must describe in their study plan how average prices in each non-contiguous State and U.S. Territory will be reliably compared to average prices in the mainland U.S. The Contractor shall describe these considerations for the proposed approach in the study plan in detail. The Contractor may propose applying a single approach in all locations, a hybrid of multiple approaches, or tailored approaches for each location. The Contractor shall also briefly describe potential alternative approaches that were considered and why they were ultimately not proposed.

The study plan shall include information that would provide answers for the following questions related to the planned approach:

• Can data collected using this approach be used to quantify price differences for identical foods and beverages?

Would comparisons of price differences by region necessarily be confounded by any other factors (e.g., local foodways, consumption patterns, and/or food environment)?

• To what extent could data collected using this approach be sufficiently representative of non-contiguous States and U.S. Territories or any specific geographies, regions, and/or communities within the non-contiguous States and U.S. Territories? Are there any areas of non-contiguous States and U.S. Territories that could not be represented using this approach?

• Could this approach also be applied to areas outside of the non-contiguous States and U.S. Territories (e.g., in the 48 States and D.C.)? If so, where? To what extent could data collected using this approach be sufficiently representative of the other locations in which they are collected?

• At what level of geographic aggregation could the data be collected and analyzed (e.g., State-level, County-level, store-level, household-level)?

• At what unit of analysis could the data be collected and analyzed? Specifically, could the data collected using this approach provide prices for individual Universal Product Codes (UPCs, also called barcodes) or for categories of foods and beverages?

• Could the data collected using this approach include prices for food items that do not have barcodes (e.g., fresh fruits, vegetables, bakery items, meat, or fish that are sold on a per pound, per ounce or per unit basis)?

• To what extent could the foods and beverages included in the data collected using this approach reflect the foods and beverages in the TFP market basket? Are there any food and beverage categories that would necessarily be excluded from or underrepresented in the data?

• By whom would the data be collected and reported? For example, the data might be comprised of households self-reporting food and beverage acquisitions, in-store price quotes collected by surveyors, or sales records maintained by retailers.

• Would the data represent prices quoted by the retailer (i.e., sticker price in the store) or prices that the consumer actually paid (accounting for loyalty card discounts, coupons, etc.)?

• What store types would be represented in the data (e.g., grocery stores, mass merchandisers, drug stores, club stores, convenience stores)?

• What is the feasibility of collecting the data on a recurring (e.g., annually, quarterly, monthly) basis using this approach? With what frequency could they be collected?

• What is the feasibility of collecting the data on a continuous basis? With what frequency could they be published and/or reported (e.g., annually, quarterly, monthly)?

• Would the data collection approach also support the collection of or linking to information on factors other than food prices (e.g., dietary intake data, food composition data)?

• What quality assurance processes would be needed in order to ensure that the data are accurate? For example, how might units be checked for accurate conversion to a common unit (e.g., packages to ounces) and outlier prices be checked for accuracy?

• Have similar data been collected and analyzed in the past? If so, how?

• What limitations of the data or considerations for its use exist?

• Could data collected using this approach be made publicly available or would their access be restricted? If the data would be restricted access, to what extent could FNS release them to the public to enable reproduction of any related analyses?

• If applicable, how will the Contractor ensure that the data collection abides by online retailer terms and conditions or otherwise does not present litigative risk?

• If applicable, how will the data collection be designed to minimize respondent burden?

• If applicable, what is the Contractor’s approach for obtaining OMB clearance for the data collection?

• If applicable, what is the Contractor’s approach for obtaining IRB approval for the data collection?

The Study Plan shall include a Data Management Plan in alignment with USDA Departmental Regulation 1020-006, which is available at: https://www.usda.gov/directives/dr-1020-006. Additional information on Data Management Plans can be found at: https://www.nal.usda.gov/data/data-management-plan-guidance.

The Draft, Revised, and Final Study Plans should be professionally designed and use professional copy-editing and graphics as appropriate. FNS shall have a minimum of 3 weeks to review each iteration of the Study Plan.

Should peer review be required, the Contractor will select the external peer reviewers in consultation with FNS and will directly correspond with the peer reviewers to provide them with the necessary documents, including nondisclosure agreements. The FNS COR must be included on all communication between the Contractor and the peer reviewers. For each version of the study plan to be peer reviewed, reviewers will be given at least 3 weeks to review and provide comment. FNS may request that the Contractor make revisions to the Draft and/or Revised Study Plans prior to the execution of peer review such that only versions of the Study Plan that FNS finds acceptable are subject to peer review.

For each iteration of peer review, the Contractor shall address all comments received from the peer reviewers, either by integrating recommended changes or by documenting the rationale for not integrating; the delivery of the subsequent version of the Study Plan shall be accompanied by this documentation. The Contractor shall compensate peer reviewers with honoraria commensurate to the level of effort involved in providing peer review.

The following deliverables will be delivered under this Task:

• Deliverable 2.1: Draft Study Plan

• Optional Deliverable 2.2: Peer Review Summary for Draft Study Plan

• Deliverable 2.3: Revised Study Plan

• Optional Deliverable 2.4: Peer Review Summary for Revised Study Plan

• Deliverable 2.5: Final Study Plan

Task 3: Proof of Concept The Contractor shall apply the approach proposed in Deliverable 2.3: Revised Study Plan by collecting food price data from no more than nine (9) entities in the State of Hawaii of the Contractor’s choosing as a means of ensuring that the proposed approach is feasible. The Contractor will deliver a memorandum describing the methodology used to collect these data and any challenges encountered during the data collection. The Contractor will identify lessons learned in the memorandum and suggest opportunities for refining the approach for application to a larger sample. The Contractor will incorporate the lessons learned into Deliverable 2.5: Final Study Plan.

The following deliverable will be delivered under this Task:

• Deliverable 3.1: Proof of Concept Memorandum

Optional Task 4: Obtain OMB Clearance This optional task will apply only if the Contractor has proposed an approach to food price data collection that imposes burden on respondents and therefore requires OMB approval prior to information collection. Should the Contractor propose an approach that does not impose burden, OMB approval will not be required.

The Contractor shall develop a 60-day Federal Register Notice for publication that meets all requirements of the Office of the Federal Register. In addition, the contractor shall submit to FNS a package requesting OMB approval for all data collection activities. The Contractor should be aware that the OMB data collection package will be reviewed at https://www.usda.gov/directives/dr-1020-006 https://www.nal.usda.gov/data/data-management-plan-guidance

FNS by the Office of Policy Support (OPS), the Planning and Regulatory Affairs Office (PRAO), USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and USDA’s Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), prior to being submitted to OMB for review and approval. Revisions to the package may be required after each level of review. The Contractor shall be required to update the OMB package after each set of required revisions and edits. The package shall not be accepted by the FNS COR until OMB gives final clearance of the package.

When developing the project schedule, the Contractor shall allow, at a minimum, 52 weeks for OMB’s final approval from the submission of the 60-day notice to FNS to final OMB approval. The approval process may take less than this amount of time; contractors are advised that the amount of time for clearance is directly related to the quality of the initial submission of the OMB package. The OMB data collection package shall contain copies of all recruiting materials and data collection instruments (to include screenshots, if applicable) and a supporting statement as set forth in the revised Standard Form No. 83a, “Instructions for Requesting OMB Approval under the Federal Reports Act, as Amended.” Special note shall be taken that scripts are required to be prepared and included in the OMB package for all communications (either by telephone, mail, email, or internet) with all persons and organizations contacted in connection with the project outside of the Federal government. If required, versions of the data collection instruments translated into other languages, such as Spanish, must be included in the OMB package. The time required in communications with respondents and separately for non-respondents contacted in the project must be included in the burden table. The OMB package should be submitted in MS Word format for submission to PRAO.

The 60-day notice shall not be considered approved until it is posted in the Federal Register.

The OMB package shall not be considered approved until OMB provides final clearance. The contractor will provide a clearance package that provides narrative addressing each of the supporting statements (Parts A and B) with appropriate appendices (which should be listed in the table of contents in the order discussed). Contractors should anticipate the need to make revisions after each level of review. The contractor will also provide all the information necessary for completing the 83-I form. The link for the 83-I form: https://www.usaid.gov/forms/omb-83-i.

The OMB package shall provide an explicit, concise description of the direct links between the study objectives, research questions, variables, instrument items, data analysis plans and desired products. The contractor shall summarize all public comments received in response to the published 60-Day Federal Register Notice concerning the information collection and draft responses to each comment to be sent by FNS. The summary of comments shall include a summary of the actions taken to address the comments. The summary of public comments shall be included in the Supporting Statement and the individual responses to the public comments will be provided as an appendix to the OMB package. The contractor may be asked to participate in a conference call presentation of the study to OMB, if requested. The package is not considered final and accepted until OMB approval is received.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidance and instructions for preparing an Information Collection Request (ICR) are provided by OCIO at: https://www.usda.gov/ocio/guidelines-and-compliance-resources/information-collection. The Contractor is advised that there may be differences in format and practices of ICRs used for obtaining OMB Clearance at other Federal agencies and/or at FNS on prior studies, therefore, the ICR package will be rejected as unacceptable unless they are fully compliant with FNS clearance requirements current at the time of submission.

The following deliverables will be delivered under this Task:

• Optional Deliverable 4.1: Draft Federal Register Notice

• Optional Deliverable 4.2: Final Federal Register Notice

• Optional Deliverable 4.3: Draft OMB Clearance Package

• Optional Deliverable 4.4: Revised OMB Clearance Package

• Optional Deliverable 4.5: Final OMB Clearance Package

Task 5: Data Collection in Hawaii The Contractor shall conduct a data collection in the State of Hawaii consistent with Deliverable 2.5: Final Study Plan.

The Contractor shall develop and test data collection instruments and procedures to include all materials and protocols needed to conduct the data collection as well as a description of how entities will be selected for data https://www.usaid.gov/forms/omb-83-i https://www.usda.gov/ocio/guidelines-and-compliance-resources/information-collection https://www.usda.gov/ocio/guidelines-and-compliance-resources/information-collection collection. Data collection may occur over a period no longer than 24 months. To best align with the Final Study Plan and ensure the objectives of the data collection are met, the Contractor may propose alternative deliverables to those described below.

The following deliverables will be delivered under this Task:

• Deliverable 5.1: Sampling Frames

• Deliverable 5.2: Representative Samples

• Deliverable 5.3: Sample Recruitment Summary Memo

• Deliverable 5.4: Sample Weights

• Deliverable 5.5: Data Collector Training Materials

• Deliverable 5.6: Evidence that Field Staff are Ready to Complete High-Quality Data Collection

• Deliverable 5.7: Weekly Memos of Completion of Data Collection

• Deliverable 5.8: Data Collection Summary Memorandum

• Deliverable 5.9: Raw Data and Documentation

Optional Task 6: Data Collection in Alaska The Contractor shall conduct a data collection in the State of Alaska consistent with Deliverable 2.5: Final Study Plan.

The Contractor shall develop and test data collection instruments and procedures to include all materials and protocols needed to conduct the data collection as well as a description of how entities will be selected for data collection. Data collection may occur over a period no longer than 24 months. To best align with the Final Study Plan and ensure the objectives of the data collection are met, the Contractor may propose alternative deliverables to those described below.

The following deliverables will be delivered under this Task:

• Optional Deliverable 6.1: Sampling Frames

• Optional Deliverable 6.2: Representative Samples

• Optional Deliverable 6.3: Sample Recruitment Summary Memo

• Optional Deliverable 6.4: Sample Weights

• Optional Deliverable 6.5: Data Collector Training Materials

• Optional Deliverable 6.6: Evidence that Field Staff are Ready to Complete High-Quality Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 6.7: Weekly Memos of Completion of Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 6.8: Data Collection Summary Memorandum

• Optional Deliverable 6.9: Raw Data and Documentation

Optional Task 7: Data Collection in Puerto Rico The Contractor shall conduct a data collection in Puerto Rico consistent with Deliverable 2.5: Final Study Plan. The Contractor shall develop and test data collection instruments and procedures to include all materials and protocols needed to conduct the data collection as well as a description of how entities will be selected for data collection.

Data collection may occur over a period no longer than 24 months. To best align with the Final Study Plan and ensure the objectives of the data collection are met, the Contractor may propose alternative deliverables to those described below.

The following deliverables will be delivered under this Task:

• Optional Deliverable 7.1: Sampling Frames

• Optional Deliverable 7.2: Representative Samples

• Optional Deliverable 7.3: Sample Recruitment Summary Memo

• Optional Deliverable 7.4: Sample Weights

• Optional Deliverable 7.5: Data Collector Training Materials

• Optional Deliverable 7.6: Evidence that Field Staff are Ready to Complete High-Quality Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 7.7: Weekly Memos of Completion of Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 7.8: Data Collection Summary Memorandum

• Optional Deliverable 7.9: Raw Data and Documentation

Optional Task 8: Data Collection in Guam The Contractor shall conduct a data collection in Guam consistent with Deliverable 2.5: Final Study Plan. The Contractor shall develop and test data collection instruments and procedures to include all materials and protocols needed to conduct the data collection as well as a description of how entities will be selected for data collection.

Data collection may occur over a period no longer than 24 months. To best align with the Final Study Plan and ensure the objectives of the data collection are met, the Contractor may propose alternative deliverables to those described below.

The following deliverables will be delivered under this Task:

• Optional Deliverable 8.1: Sampling Frames

• Optional Deliverable 8.2: Representative Samples

• Optional Deliverable 8.3: Sample Recruitment Summary Memo

• Optional Deliverable 8.4: Sample Weights

• Optional Deliverable 8.5: Data Collector Training Materials

• Optional Deliverable 8.6: Evidence that Field Staff are Ready to Complete High-Quality Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 8.7: Weekly Memos of Completion of Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 8.8: Data Collection Summary Memorandum

• Optional Deliverable 8.9: Raw Data and Documentation

Optional Task 9: Data Collection in the U.S. Virgin Islands The Contractor shall conduct a data collection in the U.S. Virgin Islands consistent with Deliverable 2.5: Final Study Plan. The Contractor shall develop and test data collection instruments and procedures to include all materials and protocols needed to conduct the data collection as well as a description of how entities will be selected for data collection. Data collection may occur over a period no longer than 24 months. To best align with the Final Study Plan and ensure the objectives of the data collection are met, the Contractor may propose alternative deliverables to those described below.

The following deliverables will be delivered under this Task:

• Optional Deliverable 9.1: Sampling Frames

• Optional Deliverable 9.2: Representative Samples

• Optional Deliverable 9.3: Sample Recruitment Summary Memo

• Optional Deliverable 9.4: Sample Weights

• Optional Deliverable 9.5: Data Collector Training Materials

• Optional Deliverable 9.6: Evidence that Field Staff are Ready to Complete High-Quality Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 9.7: Weekly Memos of Completion of Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 9.8: Data Collection Summary Memorandum

• Optional Deliverable 9.9: Raw Data and Documentation

Optional Task 10: Data Collection in American Samoa The Contractor shall conduct a data collection in American Samoa consistent with Deliverable 2.5: Final Study Plan.

The Contractor shall develop and test data collection instruments and procedures to include all materials and protocols needed to conduct the data collection as well as a description of how entities will be selected for data collection. Data collection may occur over a period no longer than 24 months. To best align with the Final Study Plan and ensure the objectives of the data collection are met, the Contractor may propose alternative deliverables to those described below.

The following deliverables will be delivered under this Task:

• Optional Deliverable 10.1: Sampling Frames

• Optional Deliverable 10.2: Representative Samples

• Optional Deliverable 10.3: Sample Recruitment Summary Memo

• Optional Deliverable 10.4: Sample Weights

• Optional Deliverable 10.5: Data Collector Training Materials

• Optional Deliverable 10.6: Evidence that Field Staff are Ready to Complete High-Quality Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 10.7: Weekly Memos of Completion of Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 10.8: Data Collection Summary Memorandum

• Optional Deliverable 10.9: Raw Data and Documentation

Optional Task 11: Data Collection in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands The Contractor shall conduct a data collection in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands consistent with Deliverable 2.5: Final Study Plan. The Contractor shall develop and test data collection instruments and procedures to include all materials and protocols needed to conduct the data collection as well as a description of how entities will be selected for data collection. Data collection may occur over a period no longer than 24 months.

To best align with the Final Study Plan and ensure the objectives of the data collection are met, the Contractor may propose alternative deliverables to those described below.

The following deliverables will be delivered under this Task:

• Optional Deliverable 11.1: Sampling Frames

• Optional Deliverable 11.2: Representative Samples

• Optional Deliverable 11.3: Sample Recruitment Summary Memo

• Optional Deliverable 11.4: Sample Weights

• Optional Deliverable 11.5: Data Collector Training Materials

• Optional Deliverable 11.6: Evidence that Field Staff are Ready to Complete High-Quality Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 11.7: Weekly Memos of Completion of Data Collection

• Optional Deliverable 11.8: Data Collection Summary Memorandum

• Optional Deliverable 11.9: Raw Data and Documentation

Task 12: Final Report The contractor shall submit to FNS a draft, revised, and final report, ready for publication to the FNS website. The report, including all drafts and revisions, shall include a detailed description of the methodology used and all results of the study. The report should provide a detailed description of the Contractor’s approach to considering the representativeness of the collected data, including a determination of whether the data are sufficiently representative, and statistical properties of the data collected.

At a minimum, this report, including all drafts and revisions, shall contain the following:

• An executive summary of the major study findings;

• An introduction and background to the study;

• A delineation of study issues, objectives and research questions;

• A presentation of all findings of the study;

• A discussion of the study limitations;

• Study conclusions; and

• Technical appendices necessary to fully document all analytic procedures used, data collection instruments, and a detailed discussion of the methodology employed, such that another researcher could replicate the methodology without further consultation with the Contractor.

The Draft, Revised, and Final Reports should be professionally designed and ready for publication and use professional copy-editing and graphics. The contractor shall provide all results in the Draft, Revised, and Final Reports using prose and graphics that are clear to the lay person, plainly define all types of error uncovered, explain logically how those errors were calculated, and include multiple, real-life examples that illustrate the methodology used. FNS shall have sufficient time to review and comment on the Draft, Revised, and Final Reports; FNS shall have a minimum of 6 weeks to review all documents that exceed 25 pages and a minimum of 3 weeks to review all documents that total 25 pages or fewer.

Pending final determination by FNS’ Peer Review Panel, the Draft and Revised Reports delivered by the Contractor to FNS may be subject to external peer review in alignment with FNS’ Clearance Procedures for the Release of Scientific Products, which are available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/clearance-procedures. Should peer review be required, the Contractor will select the external peer reviewers in consultation with FNS and will directly correspond with the peer reviewers to provide them with the necessary documents, including nondisclosure agreements. The FNS COR must be included on all communication between the Contractor and the peer reviewers. For each version of the study plan to be peer reviewed, reviewers will be given at least 6 weeks to review and provide comment.