LPTA Brand Name Evaluation Criteria.docx

DOCX document 59 KB Posted

Attached to
Brand Name for 2 - CFX Opus 96 Real-Time PCR's
Solicitation number
1232SA26Q0052
Issued by

About this file

This document is an Evaluation Criteria file for a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) brand name procurement for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The solicitation seeks to acquire two specific brand name items: 1) CFX Opus 96 Real-Time PCR Detection System (Part Number 12011319) and 2) CFX Maestro Software Win (Part Number 12013758), both manufactured by Bio-Rad. The procurement is a small business set-aside with an urgent requirement to maintain data continuity and operational efficiency by using identical laboratory instrumentation.

The evaluation will consider three key factors: Price, Technical Acceptability, and Past Performance. Technical Acceptability requires the exact brand, make, and model number specified, with new (not refurbished) items. Past Performance will be rated as Acceptable, Neutral, or Unacceptable based on prior contract performance. The award methodology involves evaluating only the lowest-priced offer for technical capability, with subsequent offers reviewed if the lowest-priced quote does not meet technical or past performance requirements. The solicitation emphasizes the critical need for consistent PCR equipment to support longitudinal analyses, reduce training costs, and ensure reliable laboratory performance.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Specifications.doc DOC document

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

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. The offeror’s quotation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 12.204, to determine if it is fair and reasonable.

We have an urgent need for 2, CFX Opus 96 Real-Time PCR Detection System since we currently use the same brand and model of PCR machines. Maintaining the same brand of PCR instrumentation in the laboratory is essential for data continuity and operational efficiency. First, data generated by this instrument will be fully compatible with the extensive historical datasets produced by the same brand of PCR machines that the laboratory has relied on for many years. This continuity is critical for longitudinal analyses, trend comparisons, and regulatory and scientific consistency. Second, continuing with the same brand minimizes additional costs and delays associated with implementing new safety protocols, maintenance procedures, and user training. Laboratory personnel are already familiar with the operating, safety, and quality-control requirements of this platform, allowing immediate deployment and reducing the risk of errors. Standardizing equipment within the laboratory therefore saves time, reduces operational costs, and ensures reliable and consistent performance

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

Item
Part Number
Nomenclature
Manufacturer
1
12011319
CFX Opus 96
Bio Rad
2
12013758
CFX Maestro Software Win
Bio Rad

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.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .