Farmers to Families Food Box Program Administration, Interim Report — Inspection Report 01801-0001-22(1)
Summary
An interim inspection report, number 01801-0001-22(1), from the Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Agriculture, dated June 24, 2022, on administration of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). It states that AMS announced awards on May 8, 2020 for the first round of purchases, totaling up to $1.2 billion, for May 15, 2020 through June 30, 2020. OIG found that AMS designed the solicitation according to Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements and Departmental guidance, but did not always award Round 1 contracts in accordance with the specified requirements of the solicitation. The report recommends that AMS develop policies for expedited award processes during Federal emergencies and upload all relevant documentation for Round 1.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Issuer
- Source documents
- Document type
- Covid19 Farmers To Families Food Box Administration Interim
- Case
- Covid19 Farmers To Families Food Box Administration Interim
Cite this document
“Farmers to Families Food Box Program Administration, Interim Report — Inspection Report 01801-0001-22(1).”
Original at usdaoig.oversight.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/covid19-farmers-to-families-food-box-administration-interim/
, SHA-256 4f33d3445d64d9e36e79ce661329c596c9bff63cfc4ff7de8d721839950a7701.Full text
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
COVID-19—Farmers to Families Food
Box Program Administration—Interim
Report
Inspection Report 01801-0001-22(1)
June 2022
COVID-19—Farmers to Families Food Box
Program Administration
Inspection Report 01801-0001-22(1)
We assessed how AMS designed the Farmers to Families Food Box Program
solicitation, whether AMS awarded the contracts in accordance with
requirements, and what methodology AMS used to allocate funding.
OBJECTIVE WHAT OIG FOUND
This interim report addresses The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)
the following objectives: Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administers
(1) Did AMS design the programs that create domestic and international
solicitation according to the
marketing opportunities for United States producers
requirements of the FAR and
Departmental guidance?; (2)
of food, fiber, and specialty crops. In response to the
Did AMS award the contracts in coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the Department—
accordance with the solicitation under AMS—established the Farmers to Families Food
requirements?; and (3) What Box Program (Food Box Program) to connect food to
methodology did AMS develop non-profits through regional and local distributors. As
and use to equitably allocate the responsible agency, AMS released a solicitation
funding to the contractors? requesting proposals from regional and local distributors
to supply the following food box types: fresh fruits
and vegetables; pre-cooked meat (chicken and pork);
dairy products; and fluid milk. On May 8, 2020, AMS
REVIEWED announced awards for the first round of purchases—
totaling up to $1.2 billion—for the period of performance
We assessed whether AMS May 15, 2020, through June 30, 2020 (hereafter referred
followed procedures in to as “Round 1”).
accordance with the FAR and
Departmental acquisition We found that AMS designed the solicitation for the
regulations, evaluated AMS’ Food Box Program according to the requirements of the
methodology to allocate funding, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Departmental
and assessed AMS’ review and guidance. Additionally, we found that AMS substantially
award of contracts for Round 1 of
adhered to the funding allocation decisions described in
the Food Box Program.
the solicitation.
Finally, while AMS established a panel to evaluate the
Food Box Program proposals, we found that the agency
RECOMMENDS did not always award Round 1 contracts in accordance
with the specified requirements of the solicitation. As
We recommend that AMS a result, some proposals were accepted and awarded
develop policies and procedures contracts despite not meeting the specified requirements
for performing expedited award of the solicitation.
processes during Federal
emergencies, and we recommend AMS agreed with our finding and recommendations,
that AMS upload all relevant
and we accepted management decision on one of two
Food Box Program supporting
documentation for Round 1 to recommendations. Further action from the agency is
the agency’s system of record. needed before management decision can be reached for
the remaining recommendation.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
United States Department of Agriculture
DATE: June 24, 2022
INSPECTION
NUMBER: 01801-0001-22(1)
TO: Bruce Summers
Administrator
Agricultural Marketing Service
ATTN: Wing Padilla
Acting Branch Chief
Internal Audits Branch
FROM: Gil Harden
Inspector General for Audit
SUBJECT: COVID-19—Farmers to Families Food Box Program Administration
This report presents the results of the subject review. Your written response to the official draft
is included in its entirety at the end of the report. We have incorporated excerpts from your
response, and the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) position, into the relevant sections of the
report. Based on your written response, we are accepting management decision for
Recommendation 2. However, we are unable to accept management decision for
Recommendation 1. The information needed to reach management decision is set forth in the
OIG Position section following the recommendation.
In accordance with Departmental Regulation 1720-1, please furnish a reply within 60 days
describing the corrective actions taken or planned, and timeframes for implementing the
recommendations for which management decisions have not been reached. Please note that the
regulation requires management decision to be reached on all recommendations within 6 months
from report issuance, and final action needs to be taken within 1 year of each management
decision to prevent being listed in the Department’s annual Agency Financial Report. Please
follow your internal agency procedures in forwarding final action correspondence to Office of
the Chief Financial Officer.
We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation extended to us by members of your staff during our
inspection fieldwork and subsequent discussions. This report contains publicly available
information and will be posted in its entirety to our website (https://usdaoig.oversight.gov) in the
near future.
Table of Contents
Background and Objectives ....................................................................................1
Objective 1: Did AMS design the solicitation according to the requirements of
the FAR and Departmental guidance? ..................................................................4
Objective 2: Did AMS award the contracts in accordance with the solicitation
requirements? ...........................................................................................................5
Recommendation 1 ............................................................................................7
Recommendation 2 ............................................................................................7
Objective 3: What methodology did AMS develop and use to equitably
allocate funding to the contractors? .......................................................................8
Scope and Methodology ...........................................................................................9
Abbreviations .........................................................................................................10
Exhibit A: Summary of Monetary Results .........................................................11
Exhibit B: Sampling Methodology and Projections ..........................................12
Agency’s Response .................................................................................................15
Background and Objectives
Background
The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
administers programs that create domestic and international marketing opportunities for United
States producers of food, fiber, and specialty crops. AMS’ mission is to facilitate marketing
agricultural products in domestic and international markets, while ensuring fair trading practices
and promoting a competitive and efficient marketplace for producers, traders, and consumers of
United States food, fiber, and specialty crops.
In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Congress enacted the
Families First Coronavirus Response Act 1 and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act. 2 These acts provided more than $35.8 billion to USDA to use for relief efforts
through its agencies and programs. On April 17, 2020, the Secretary of Agriculture announced
that USDA was exercising its authority under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act to
purchase and distribute agricultural products to people impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In
order to purchase and distribute these products, the Department established the Farmers to
Families Food Box Program (Food Box Program) under AMS. According to AMS, the Food
Box Program sought to address three critical needs simultaneously: to provide markets for
farmers faced with declining demand and the crisis of food rotting in fields and animals being
euthanized; to provide for the food needs of newly unemployed Americans; and to help put
suppliers and distributors back to work. The purpose of the Food Box Program was to connect
food—which would have otherwise been sold to restaurants, hotels, schools, and other food
service entities—to regional and local distributors (contractors) for them to purchase and deliver
$3 billion in fresh produce, dairy, and meat products to non-profit and governmental
organizations. 3 Through partnerships with regional and local distributors, AMS anticipated
purchasing $100 million per month for each of the following food box types: fresh fruits and
vegetables; pre-cooked meat (chicken and pork); dairy products; and fluid milk.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 18, Emergency Acquisitions, provides agencies
with flexibilities to streamline the acquisition process under certain circumstances, such as when
the President of the United States issues an emergency declaration. The former Secretary of
Agriculture used this authority to procure commodities to deliver to non-profit and governmental
organizations to assist with distributing food to Americans during the pandemic. The
Department created the Food Box Program and released a solicitation requesting proposals that
would supply food boxes from a pre‑approved portfolio of fresh fruit, vegetables, dairy, and/or
meat products. 4 AMS established an evaluation panel to review received proposals and, on
May 8, 2020, AMS issued awards for the first round of purchases—totaling up to $1.2 billion—
for the period of performance May 15, 2020, through June 30, 2020 (hereafter referred to as
“Round 1”).
1
Families First Coronavirus Response Act, Pub. L. No. 116-127 (Mar. 2020).
2
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136 (Mar. 2020).
3
Throughout this report, we refer to distributors as “contractors.”
4
Solicitation AG-12-3J14-20-R-0377, dated Apr. 24, 2020, and amendment 1, dated Apr. 29, 2020.
INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1) 1
AMS required contractors to submit Food Box Program proposals in four parts: technical
information, offeror capability, past performance, and price. According to AMS’ solicitation, the
agency evaluated these proposals on the technical information, past performance, and offeror
capability submitted; these three evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more
important than the price of the proposals. AMS also required that contractors submit specific
standard forms (SF), including complete and signed copies of Form SF-1449, Solicitation
Contract, and SF-30, Amendment of Solicitation, in which the contractor acknowledged AMS’
amendment to the solicitation.
As part of the Food Box Program, AMS required contractors to perform food distribution
supply‑chain processes to get the procured food to people impacted by the COVID‑19 pandemic
through non-profits. Specifically, each contractor had to construct a commodity supply‑chain to
obtain the products and a network of non-profit and governmental recipient entities, distribute
the food to organizations within the network, and track and maintain evidence of the food
delivered to those recipients. The following image illustrates the Food Box Program’s food
distribution process.
Figure 1: Infographic from AMS’ website:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FarmerstoFamiliesFoodBox.pdf. Last accessed
Jan. 6, 2022.
Objectives
Our objectives for this interim inspection report were to address the following questions: 5
5
During the course of our inspection, we decided to issue interim reports as we completed the objectives. In this
report, we are addressing three of our four objectives. The fourth objective is to answer the question: What controls
did AMS develop and implement to ensure awardees fulfilled the obligations of the contract?
2 INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1)
1. Did AMS design the solicitation according to the requirements of the FAR and
Departmental guidance?
2. Did AMS award the contracts in accordance with the solicitation requirements?
3. What methodology did AMS develop and use to equitably allocate funding to the
contractors?
INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1) 3
Objective 1: Did AMS design the solicitation according to the
requirements of the FAR and Departmental guidance?
We found that AMS designed the solicitation for the Food Box Program according to the
requirements of the FAR and Departmental guidance. 6 In response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
AMS used the AMS Master Solicitation for Commodity Procurements—Domestic Programs as
the basis to create an Emergency-Master Solicitation for Commodity Procurement (E-MSCP).
In the E‑MSCP, AMS included solicitation provisions and contract clauses—from both the FAR
and Departmental guidance—that the agency deemed appropriate for the Food Box Program
solicitation. In addition, AMS applied the emergency provision flexibilities allowed under FAR
Part 18, Emergency Acquisitions, for the Food Box Program solicitation. 7 These flexibilities
allowed the agency to reduce the time it needed to develop and issue the Food Box Program
solicitation, thereby potentially increasing the number of proposals the agency received, and
expediting AMS’ contract awarding process. The Food Box Program solicitation sought
potential contractors to supply a pre‑approved portfolio of fresh fruit, vegetable, dairy, and/or
meat products that would be distributed to Americans impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic
through the use of non-profits and governmental organizations.
We also found that the agency used other provisions from FAR Part 12, Acquisition of
Commercial Items; Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation; and Part 52, Solicitation Provisions and
Contract Clauses, to prepare the solicitation.
6
The USDA’s Acquisition Regulation (AGAR) contains basic policies and general information about USDA
guidance. The AGAR provides for USDA to codify and publish acquisition policies and procedures that supplement
the FAR in instances when the FAR does not cover a subject matter. FAR Chapter 4 codifies the AGAR.
7
FAR Part 18, Emergency Acquisitions.
4 INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1)
Objective 2: Did AMS award the contracts in accordance with the
solicitation requirements?
While AMS established a panel to evaluate the Food Box Program proposals, the agency did not
always award Round 1 contracts in accordance with the specified requirements of the
solicitation. Specifically, AMS’ evaluation panel inconsistently reviewed proposals and did not
maintain complete contract documentation. This occurred because AMS did not have policies
and procedures to implement the program in a short timeframe with limited personnel to ensure a
consistent review of a large volume of proposals and contract actions. This also occurred
because AMS did not adequately store documentation in its system of record. As a result, some
proposals were accepted and awarded contracts despite not meeting the specified requirements of
the solicitation.
The FAR requires agencies to establish an evaluation panel to ensure a comprehensive evaluation
of proposals. 8 Further, agencies are required to ensure consistency among the evaluation
factors. 9 The panel shall evaluate the proposals based on the factors contained in the
solicitation. 10 Finally, agencies shall establish files containing all contractual actions 11 and
maintain files that are readily accessible. 12
On April 24, 2020, AMS issued the Food Box Program solicitation for the first round of
purchases with a proposal submission deadline of May 1, 2020. 13 In response to the solicitation,
AMS received 553 proposals. AMS established a technical evaluation panel to review these
proposals and—7 days later, on May 8, 2020—announced that the agency had awarded contracts
to 198 contractors. For contractors AMS did not select, the agency sent written notification
listing the most common factors for a non-award. 14
The technical evaluation panel evaluated each proposal’s technical information, offeror
capability, past performance, and price sections using the applicable requirements outlined in the
solicitation. The solicitation required that each contractor submit specific documentation, for
example, SF-30, Amendment to Solicitation; a registration form for AMS’ Web-Based Supply
Chain Management System (WBSCM) if the contractor was not already registered in the system;
8
FAR § 15.303(b)(1).
9
FAR § 15.303(b)(3).
10
FAR § 15.303(b)(4).
11
FAR § 4.801(a).
12
FAR § 4.802(c)(2).
13
Solicitation AG-12-3J14-20-R-0377, dated Apr. 24, 2020.
14
These factors included not submitting the SF-30, Amendment to Solicitation, and not submitting all required
attachments and affirmations, including the WBSCM registration form and nonmanufacturer information, if
applicable.
INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1) 5
and, if applicable, a copy of written agreements between a nonmanufacturer and an approved
supplier. 15, 16, 17
In order to assess AMS’ awarding process, we statistically selected and evaluated 143 of the
553 proposals AMS received for Round 1. 18 We found that AMS inconsistently applied
solicitation requirements when reviewing and awarding contract proposals. For example:
• AMS awarded contracts to seven contractors that were missing the SF-30, Amendment to
Solicitation, in their proposals, while AMS removed nine contractors from consideration
for missing the SF-30.
• AMS awarded contracts to 3 contractors that did not submit the WBSCM registration
form, while AMS removed 11 contractors from consideration for not having the WBSCM
form.
• AMS awarded contracts to 25 contractors that did not provide supplier information in the
nonmanufacturers section of the vendor capability checklist, while AMS removed
13 from consideration for not providing supplier information in the nonmanufacturers
section.
We also found that AMS did not maintain complete contract documentation. Specifically, AMS
awarded one of our sampled contractors more than $5.9 million, but could not provide the Office
of Inspector General (OIG) with any documentation to support the contractor’s proposal.
With the 1-week timeframe to award contracts, and the urgency to respond to the COVID-19
pandemic, AMS did not conduct secondary reviews of the proposals’ evaluation factors, which
could have ensured a more consistent review of proposals had AMS established these procedures
for performing an expedited award process. Additionally, due to limited personnel, the speed of
program implementation, and the volume of contracts awarded, AMS did not utilize WBSCM, its
usual system of record, to store Food Box Program documentation related to procurement. 19
While we acknowledge the urgency the COVID-19 pandemic caused, we believe the timeframe
for review of 553 proposals was too short given AMS’ limited contracting resources and given
that the agency had not previously utilized a similar solicitation and contracting process.
AMS’ Food Box Program purchased fresh produce, dairy, and meat products—which were in
surplus due to pandemic-related closures of food service businesses—by contracting the
packaging of these products into family-sized boxes and transporting them to non-profits serving
Americans in need during a national emergency. OIG acknowledges AMS’ extraordinary efforts
to help reduce food waste and feed Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic by awarding
contracts totaling up to $1.2 billion for Round 1. However, AMS’ need to expedite the award
15
AMS required contractors to acknowledge AMS’ April 29, 2020, amendment to the solicitation by completing the
SF-30, Amendment of Solicitation, form.
16
WBSCM is a fully integrated, web-based ordering and procurement system that AMS personnel use to document
the agency’s contract activities. We did not assess WBSCM information system controls, as they were not relevant
to our inspection objectives.
17
Nonmanufacturer means a concern that furnishes a product it did not manufacture or produce.
18
See Exhibit B of this report.
19
In September 2021, AMS stated it was in the process of consolidating and storing its procurement documentation
in WBSCM.
6 INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1)
process during this emergency response demonstrates the necessity for AMS to develop policies
and procedures to prepare for future emergencies. Furthermore, AMS should complete
uploading relevant supporting documentation to the agency’s system of record.
Recommendation 1
Develop policies and procedures for performing expedited award processes during Federal
emergencies. These policies and procedures should include ensuring a consistent review of
contracting actions and timeframes for storing documentation in its system of record.
Agency Response
Through the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, AMS found that the use of Basic
Ordering Agreements (BOA) allowed the Government to establish Agreements with
vendors so that contract terms and pricing formulas were in place, allowing future
purchases to be processed more quickly. AMS determined that the Contracting Officers,
in conjunction with the acquisition team, should consider using BOAs in future
emergency procurements. An internal guidance on the use of BOAs was developed and
shared with the Commodity Procurement Program staff.
OIG Position
We do not accept management decision for this recommendation. While AMS agreed
with our recommendation explaining how using BOAs to award vendors during future
Federal emergencies could expedite its process, the agency did not specify how it plans to
address ensuring a consistent review of contracting actions and timeframes for storing
documentation in its system of record. To reach management decision, AMS needs to
clearly define how it will address these areas and document this as part of its internal
guidance.
Recommendation 2
AMS should upload all relevant Food Box Program supporting documentation for Round 1 in the
agency’s system of record.
Agency Response
To address this recommendation, AMS will implement a two-phased approach uploading
all source selection decision documents to WBSCM, and uploading all proposals/award
summary into an accessible system linked to WBSCM.
OIG Position
We accept management decision on this recommendation.
INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1) 7
Objective 3: What methodology did AMS develop and use to
equitably allocate funding to the contractors?
We found that AMS developed a methodology to allocate funds by awarding contractors
100 percent of the amount of boxes requested at the prices each contractor submitted in their
proposals. AMS officials stated that they funded these contractors at these prices and quantities
the contractors requested because they believed that the contractors would soon return to their
normal, commercial customers. Additionally, an AMS official stated the agency developed the
contracts where the contractor would not be in default on the contract if they could not deliver
their requested maximum quantity of food boxes, as stated in their proposal.
To determine whether AMS fully funded contractors’ requested amounts of boxes, we reviewed
55 awarded contracts, then compared the pricing exhibits contractors submitted in their proposals
to AMS’ purchase orders. 20, 21 When we compared the contractors’ proposed pricing exhibits to
AMS’ purchase orders, we found that AMS fully funded 51 of the 55 awarded contracts. 22
When we asked AMS officials about the four remaining contracts, the officials stated that—
because AMS personnel had left and because time had passed since the contract actions—the
agency could not provide a clear reason as to why AMS did not fully fund those four remaining
contracts.
Although AMS did not fully fund 4 of the 55 sampled contracts, AMS intended to fully fund
contracts and substantially adhered to its allocation decisions by funding contractors as described
in the solicitation. Therefore, we do not make any recommendations related to this inspection
objective.
20
According to AMS, the technical evaluation panel rated 257 submitted proposals as “acceptable.” We statistically
sampled 70 of the 257 “acceptable” rated proposals of which only 56 of the 70 had received contracts. OIG did not
receive the proposal for one contract awarded as previously discussed in Inspection Objective 2. We discuss our
statistical sample in Exhibit B.
21
Purchase orders specify the quantity of products ordered.
22
The 51 proposals AMS fully funded in our sample totaled more than $171.4 million. The four proposals AMS did
not fully fund in our sample were awarded more than $57.8 million out of a requested $73 million.
8 INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1)
Scope and Methodology
Our inspection scope covered AMS’ contracts awarded for Round 1 of the Food Box Program—
totaling up to $1.2 billion—for the period of performance May 15, 2020, through June 30, 2020.
We conducted our fieldwork with AMS’ Commodity Procurement Program officials from
July 2020 through May 2022.
To accomplish our inspection objectives, we:
• Interviewed agency officials (through video conferencing and email communication);
• Reviewed laws, regulations, written policies, procedures, and other guidance to gain
sufficient knowledge and understanding of the program and the award process;
• Evaluated the solicitation design, award process, and contract selection procedures AMS
used to solicit request for proposals and to issue awards to eligible and capable
contractors for the Food Box Program;
• Assessed whether AMS followed procedures, in accordance with the FAR and AGAR, in
soliciting proposals and selecting contractors;
• Evaluated AMS’ methodology to allocate funding to contractors in an equitable manner;
and
• Reviewed a statistical sample of 143 proposals submitted by contractors to assess AMS’
review and awarding of contracts for Round 1 of the Food Box Program. (See
Exhibit B).
We acquired data from AMS, which included the proposals submitted by contractors, results of
the technical evaluation panels, and award information. We assessed the reliability of these data
by reviewing spreadsheets created by the agency and source documentation submitted by the
contractors, and interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. From these efforts,
we believe the information we obtained is sufficiently reliable for this report.
We conducted this inspection in accordance with the Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency’s Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation. Those standards
require that we obtain sufficient, competent, and relevant evidence to provide a reasonable basis
for our findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on our inspection objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations based on our review.
INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1) 9
Abbreviations
AGAR ....................................USDA Acquisition Regulation
AMS .......................................Agricultural Marketing Service
BOA .......................................Basic Ordering Agreements
COVID-19..............................coronavirus disease 2019
E-MSCP .................................Emergency-Master Solicitation for Commodity Procurement
FAR ........................................Federal Acquisition Regulation
OIG ........................................Office of Inspector General
SF ...........................................Standard Form
USDA.....................................United States Department of Agriculture
WBSCM .................................Web-Based Supply Chain Management System
10 INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1)
Exhibit A: Summary of Monetary Results
Exhibit A summarizes the monetary results for our inspection report by finding and
recommendation number.
Finding Recommendation Description Amount Category
AMS did not
retain any Questioned Costs,
Objective 2 2 documentation $5,928,922 No Recovery
for an awarded Recommended
contract.
Total $5,928,922
INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1) 11
Exhibit B: Sampling Methodology and Projections
Objective
OIG conducted an inspection of AMS’ Farmers to Families Food Box Program. The objectives
of our inspection were to address the following questions: 23
1. Did AMS design the solicitation according to the requirements of the FAR and
Departmental guidance?
2. Did AMS award the contracts in accordance with the solicitation requirements?
3. What methodology did AMS develop and use to equitably allocate funding to the
contractors?
Inspection Universe
Overall, there were 553 proposals submitted for AMS to evaluate. We used two populations of
records for this inspection work:
1. The first population we used to determine if AMS properly awarded the contracts to
those proposals the agency rated as “Acceptable” for the offeror capability evaluation
factor (257).
2. The second population we used to evaluate the review of the proposals submitted, but
that AMS did not rate as “Acceptable” for the offeror capability evaluation
factor (296).
Sample Design
The sample sizes were determined based on the following factors:
• Number in universe eligible for selection: 257 and 296 proposals;
• Confidence level: We used a two-tailed 95 percent confidence intervals (CI);
• Precision: We used a CI no wider than 20 percent (for example, precision is ±10 percent
if CI is symmetrical around point estimate) and anticipating the need to estimate several
proportions simultaneously; and
• Expected exception rate: We did not have reliable historical information to help estimate
exception rates, and, as anticipated, these rates varied significantly, so we assumed an
error rate of 50 percent for the most conservative approach.
This resulted in choosing a random sample size of 70 from the first universe of 257.
This resulted in choosing a random sample size of 73 from the second universe of 296.
Overall, this resulted in a total random sample size of 143 proposals.
Results
Since AMS’ technical evaluation panel reviewers did not consistently review the proposals,
exception rates varied significantly. Because these exception rates depend so heavily on which
23
During the course of our inspection, we decided to issue interim reports as we completed the objectives. In this
report, we are addressing three of our four objectives. The fourth objective is to answer the question: What controls
did AMS develop and implement to ensure awardees fulfilled the obligations of the contract?
12 INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1)
reviewer conducted the review of the proposal, we decided not to statistically project average
exception rates for the universe.
INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1) 13
14 INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1)
Agency’s Response
Agricultural Marketing Service
Response to Inspection Report
INSPECTION REPORT 01801-0001-22(1) 15
Subject: Agricultural Marketing Service’s Response to Office of Inspector General
Inspection #01801-0001-22: COVID-19 – Farmers to Families Food Box
Program Administration
______________________________________________________________________________
To: Gil H. Harden, Gil.Harden@oig.usda.gov
Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Office of Inspector General
From: Bruce Summers /s/, Bruce.Summers@usda.gov
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service
______________________________________________________________________________
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
Commodity Procurement Program agrees with the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
recommendations in the COVID-19 – Farmers to Families Food Box Program Administration
inspection report, #01801-0001-22.
Please find AMS’ responses to OIG’s recommendations below.
Objective 2: Did AMS award the contracts in accordance with the solicitation
requirements?
Recommendation 1
Develop policies and procedures for performing expedited award processes during Federal
emergencies. These policies and procedures should include ensuring a consistent review of
contracting actions, and timeframes for storing documentation in its system of record.
Agency Response:
Through the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, AMS found that the use of Basic Ordering
Agreements (BOA) allowed the Government to establish Agreements with vendors so that
contract terms and pricing formulas were in place, allowing future purchases to be processed
more quickly. AMS determined that the Contracting Officers, in conjunction with the
acquisition team, should consider using BOAs in future emergency procurements. An internal
guidance on the use of BOAs was developed and shared with the Commodity Procurement
Program staff.
Completion Date: April 2022
1
Recommendation 2
AMS should upload all relevant Food Box Program supporting documentation for Round 1 in the
agency’s system of record.
Agency Response:
To address this recommendation, AMS will implement a two-phased approach:
1) Upload all source selection decision documents to WBSCM:
a. Acceptance Letter
b. TEB Report/Award Decision
c. D&F evaluating options
d. Debriefing Letters
2) Upload all proposals/award summary into an accessible system linked to WBSCM. We
plan on implementing one or both of the following options:
a. Load proposals into a cloud storage location with a “pointer document” to the
location
b. Via a USB drive work with USDA data management division to load into a
central repository.
Estimated Completion Date: May 2023
2
Learn more about USDA OIG
Visit our website: usdaoig.oversight.gov
Follow us on Twitter: @OIGUSDA
How to Report Suspected Wrongdoing in USDA
Programs
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
File complaint online: usdaoig.oversight.gov/hotline
Monday–Friday, 9:00 a.m.– 3:00 p.m. ET
In Washington, DC 202-690-1622
Outside DC 800-424-9121
TDD (Call Collect) 202-690-1202
Bribes or Gratuities
202-720-7257 (24 hours)
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made
(USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and available in languages other than English.
employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs
are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimina-
sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, tion Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination
age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide
assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the
rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA
bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
program or incident. Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax:
(202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for
program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET
Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal All photographs on the front and back covers are from USDA’s Flickr site and are in
the public domain. They do not depict any particular audit or investigation.
File and source
- File
- covid19-farmers-to-families-food-box-administration-interim.pdf
- Size
- 8,822,111 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4f33d3445d64d9e36e79ce661329c596c9bff63cfc4ff7de8d721839950a7701
- Original
- usdaoig.oversight.gov