Highest Technically Rated with Fair and Reasonable Pricing Evaluation Criteria.docx
DOCX document 57 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 28ft Conservation No-tilt Drill Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 1232SA26Q0479
About this file
This is an evaluation criteria document that outlines how the Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service will assess quotations for a 28ft Conservation No-tilt Drill solicitation (1232SA26Q0479). Awards will be made to the highest technically rated offeror with fair and reasonable pricing and acceptable or neutral past performance, rather than to the lowest-priced vendor.
The evaluation process consists of three components. Technical Approach evaluates the offeror's ability to provide a sound, compliant approach meeting all requirements, with quotations required to demonstrate capability to meet delivery requirements, explain any unachievable requirements, and address how SOW requirements will be accomplished. Price evaluation determines whether proposed pricing is fair and reasonable per FAR 12.204, with offerors required to provide pricing for the base period and all individual line items, including any quantity discounts or prompt payment discounts. Past Performance is assessed using a three-tier rating system: Acceptable (demonstrated ability to meet contract requirements including quality, timeliness, cost control, and adherence to terms), Neutral (no prior performance record), or Unacceptable (documented history of failure to meet requirements). The Government may reference contractor-provided references, prior USDA contracts, CPARS, and other federal sources to make past performance determinations. Award will be made only if the highest technically rated proposal includes fair and reasonable pricing and acceptable or neutral past performance; tradeoffs between technical merit and price will not be conducted.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| DEI Clause.docx | DOCX document | |
| C5_Combined Synopsis_Solicitation_Revised 10 Apr 2026.docx | DOCX document | |
| Specifications.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Evaluation Criteria when using Highest Technically Rated with Fair and Reasonable Pricing
Evaluation Criteria The provision at FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services is not applicable to this solicitation. In lieu of this provision, quotes will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 12.203 based on the criteria listed below. Award will be made to the offeror with the highest technically rated quotation with fair and reasonable pricing and acceptable or neutral past performance.
Technical Approach: The technical approach will evaluate the ability of the offeror to provide a sound and compliant approach that meets all requirements and shows a thorough understanding of them. It is the contractor's responsibility to ensure their quotation clearly demonstrates their capability to meet these requirements. All offerors must provide the following minimum information and documentation with their quotations to be considered responsive and have their offers evaluated:
· Ability of the offeror to meet the Delivery requirements listed in the Specifications.
· Detailed explanation of any requirement listed in the Specifications that cannot be successfully accomplished by the offeror.
· The offeror must address how they will accomplish the requirements of the SOW.
Price: Any quantity price discounts and discounts for prompt payment should be included in this section. Failure to propose pricing for the base period and all individual line items may result in a quotation being excluded from further consideration. The offeror’s quotation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 12.204, to determine if it is fair and reasonable.
Past Performance:
The Government may utilize any references provided by the Contractor, along with information available from past contracts/orders with the USDA and any information found using sources such as Federal Government sources or the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to determine if the Contractor has acceptable or neutral Past Performance. Past Performance will be evaluated using the following rating system:
· Acceptable: The contractor shows a demonstrated ability to meet contract requirements in prior or current contracts, including quality of work, timeliness, cost control, business relations, and adherence to contract terms.
· Neutral: Offeror does not have a past performance record.
· Unacceptable: The contractor has a documented history of failing to meet contract requirements, including poor quality, missed deadlines, cost overruns, lack of responsiveness, or unethical behavior.
Evaluation Method:
All quotations will be evaluated to identify the offeror presenting the most technically advantageous solution based on the stated evaluation criteria. Once the highest technically rated offeror is identified, their price will be evaluated to determine whether it is fair and reasonable. Past performance will also be assessed to ensure it is acceptable or neutral.
Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be the highest technically rated, provided that:
· The proposed price is fair and reasonable, and
· Past performance is assessed as acceptable or neutral.
Award will not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offeror. Tradeoffs will not be conducted.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .