LPTA Brand Name or Equal Evaluation Criteria 1165914.doc

Sample Evaluation Criteria when using LPTA for a Brand Name or Equal requirement.

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. Any quantity price discounts and discounts for prompt payment should be included in this section. Total price evaluation will be for the base period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. Failure to propose pricing for the base period 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.

Technical Acceptability: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a requirement for the following items on a brand name or equal basis.

A2L Scroll type 4.5hp 208-230V/3PH/60hz Low temp

IntelliGen Field Mount iFM Kit with 25ft sensor lead wires

Offeror’s providing “or equal” items shall include in their quotation descriptive literature such as illustrations, drawings, or a clear reference, such as a web site to information readily available to the Contracting Officer showing that the items being quoted meets all salient characteristics. Merely stating that the items meet is not acceptable. The Contracting Officer is not responsible for locating or obtaining any information not identified in the offer.

The Technical capability will be evaluated to determine an overall rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. To be considered technically acceptable, the quoted product must:

1. Meet or exceed all salient characteristics of the brand name product as specified in the solicitation.

2. Be clearly identified by brand name, make, and model number, or identified as an “equal” product.

3. Include sufficient descriptive literature or documentation (e.g., product specifications, datasheets, or brochures) to demonstrate how the proposed product meets or exceeds the required salient characteristics.

4. Be available for delivery within the timeframe specified in the solicitation.

Failure to provide adequate documentation or to meet the required salient characteristics will result in a determination of technical unacceptability, and the quotation will not 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:

The Government will evaluate quotations based on the lowest price technically acceptable criteria. Only the lowest priced offer will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability. 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 price, technically acceptable offer with acceptable or neutral past performance is identified.