LPTA Brand Name Evaluation Criteria 1167871.docx

Sample Evaluation Criteria when using LPTA for a Brand Name Procurement

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 representing the best value to the Government.

Price: Any quantity price discounts and discounts for prompt payment should be included in this section. Total price evaluation will be for the base period, all option periods and in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, up to a six-month extension period. Failure to propose pricing for the base period and all option periods on 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.

For purposes of evaluation, the potential need to exercise the option under FAR 52.217-8 to extend a period of performance for a maximum period of six (6) months beyond any period of performance will be considered the same for all offerors. The Government will consider that if the extension of service clause (FAR 52.217-8) is exercised, it will be on the exact same rates and terms, other than length of performance, as the period of performance being extended. For purposes of evaluation only, the Government will use the rates specified in the last option period and add the cost of six months to the prices proposed for the base period and all option periods to determine total evaluated price of the contract. The Government will determine whether the price, including the options available under FAR 52.217-8, is fair and reasonable.

Technical Acceptability: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires the following items on a brand name basis.

Technical Acceptability will be evaluated to determine an overall rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. Technical Acceptability will be evaluated on the ability of the offeror to provide new manufactured commercial items from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or an OEM approved source. To be considered technically acceptable, the quoted product must:

1. Be the exact brand name, make, and model number specified in the solicitation.

2. Include sufficient documentation (e.g., manufacturer quote, datasheet, or product listing) to confirm the product offered is the exact item requested.

3. Be new (not refurbished or remanufactured) and meet all delivery requirements stated in the solicitation.

Quotations offering alternate, substitute, or “equal” products will not be considered and will be deemed technically unacceptable.

Only quotations determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for award.

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:

Only the lowest priced offer will be evaluated for Technical Capability. Should the lowest priced offer not receive an acceptable technical or past performance rating, the process will continue in order of lowest priced offer until the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer with acceptable or neutral past performance is identified.