FNS is issuing this policy to provide states with flexibility to serve Hurricane Harvey evacuees. States may choose to either serve evacuees through expedited SNAP rules or through the simplified program rules in the Evacuee Policy, as described in this memorandum. When applying the Evacuee Policy, states must use the criteria detailed in this memorandum for determining eligibility, household composition, verification, benefit allotments, and duplicate participation. This memorandum also outlines the reporting and Quality Control processes for cases processed under the Evacuee Policy.
The purpose of this memorandum is to amend guidance provided in SP 45-2016 Draft Tool for Local Agency Procurement Reviews for School Food Authorities in SY 2016-17 and to clarify FNS expectations for state agency oversight of school food authority procurement procedures.
This memorandum replaces SP 24-2016, Compliance with and Enforcement of the Buy American Provision in the National School Lunch Program. It provides several updates, including suggested contract language to be utilized in solicitations, and serves to reinforce the importance of the Buy American provision to our economy and its positive effects on small and local businesses.
Recently, we have been asked 1) whether an equipment manufacturer would violate Department regulation 7 CFR Part 3016.60(b) if the equipment manufacturer writes the bid specifications for a school food authority (SFA) when that manufacturer does not directly sell its products to the SFA, but uses dealers or distributors instead and 2), would a food service management company (FSMC) violate §3016.60(b), if the FSMC drafted a provision to amend an existing SFA-FSMC contract
As you know, in August 2000, the procurement requirements for the child nutrition programs were moved from Department regulation 7 CFR Part 3015 to 7 CFR Parts 3016 and 3019. Attached are a number of questions and answers we have received concerning how these requirements changed the procedures for procurements paid with State Administrative Expense Funds.
The head of household may not be held "automatically" responsible for trafficking the household's benefits if there is no direct evidence identifying him/her as the guilty party. However, OGC was also supportive of holding the head of household responsible when there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show his/her complicity in the violative act.