FARSmarterBids
Bid Smarter. Far Smarter.

(b)(3) Solicitation Provision.

(i) The provision at 52.217-9002 entitled "Conditions for Evaluation and Acceptance of Offers for Part Numbered Items" may be used in negotiated acquisitions of replacement parts, components, and assemblies which are identified in the acquisition identification description (AID) only by the name of an approved source, a part number, and a brief description, including when acquisitions are conducted using FAR Part

12, except that the provision at 52.213-9004, Offeror Representations, Certifications, and Fill-in Information-Electronic Commerce, or an alternative method of collecting the data therein, shall be used instead, and shall incorporate 52.217-9002 by reference, whenever a solicitation below the simplified acquisition threshold is automated. (See 13.104(90).) The provision at 52.217-9002 shall be used verbatim, except that the acronym “CLIN” may be substituted for the word “item” wherever it appears in the provision. When the provision is used, the following shall be inserted in the solicitation after each item description:

“Offer” based on:

Manufacturer’s Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(ii) The provision at 52.217-9002 may also be used in acquisitions of NSNs identified as "critical safety items (CSIs)" in the AID (see 11.302-91); however, when acquiring CSIs, offers of "exact product" are evaluated in accordance with the clause at 52.211-9005, Conditions for Evaluation and Acceptance of Offers for Critical Safety Items.

(iii) The provision at 52.217-9002 may be used for simplified acquisitions as well as large purchases, provided that the full text of the provision shall be made available to offerors. (When 52.213-9004, or an alternative data collection method, is used, its inclusion of pertinent fill-in portions of 52.217-9002, and the latter's overall incorporation by reference, shall, along with directions to the offeror on electronic access to, and other availability (including hard copy) of, all applicable guidance, constitute provision in full text.)

(iv) The provision should not be used in procurements when technical personnel have specifically advised that for the current procurement, alternate products cannot be evaluated, e.g., restricted source or source controlled items, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) items for which necessary testing equipment is not reasonably available, etc.

(v) It is the Government that determines if evidence furnished by offerors in accordance with 52.217-9002 is acceptable. At a minimum, evidence must be sufficient to establish the identity of the product and its manufacturing source. Contracting officers have broad flexibility to determine if a particular response conforms, as long as the decision is reasonable. Evidence is not necessarily limited to paper documentation. (For example, the contracting officer may request a sample item for testing.)

(vi) When the product being offered is manufactured for an approved source cited in the AID, the offeror must, if requested by the contracting officer, furnish evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the approved source (A) is overseeing and involved in the manufacturer’s production of items; and (B) has authorized the manufacturer to produce the item, identify it by that approved source’s name and part number, and sell the item directly to the Government (see 52.217-9002(b)(1)). Such evidence could be documentation obtained directly from the approved source; or identification on a Web site maintained by the approved source, confirming that the manufacturer is an acceptable source for the item identified by that approved source’s name and part number. If evidence cannot be obtained directly from the approved source, this does not necessarily preclude acceptance of the offer, if the contracting officer can adequately document that the approved source has oversight of and involvement in the manufacturing process by other means.

(b)(4) Evaluation of alternate item offers for spare parts. When the “Conditions for Evaluation and Acceptance of Offers for Part Numbered Items” provision is used, DSCs shall follow the policy in this Section 17.7501 in its entirety when considering alternate offers and when deciding whether to evaluate alternate offers prior to award. When the provision is not used, all alternate offers will be evaluated, unless the solicitation has provided information that only the item cited in the acquisition identification description (AID) will be acceptable (e.g., restricted source or source controlled items, NIOSH items for which necessary testing equipment is not reasonably available, etc.) The level of technical data that the Government has available for use to evaluate the acceptability of an alternate product offered, and the corresponding level of technical data that must be furnished with an offer of alternate product, will be identified either in the AID or in paragraph (c)(2) of the provision at 52.217-9002. If the level of data and submission requirements are not identified in either of these locations in the solicitation, then 52.217-9002(c)(3)(a) applies. DSC procedures shall also provide for prompt notification by the contracting officer to alternate offerors of interim status (when required) and final status of the alternate offer, i.e., approved, disapproved, returned without evaluation. Several other factors should be considered in making a decision to evaluate items prior to award.

(i) Reserved.

(ii) For any purchase, if the time before proposed award does not permit evaluation, and delay of award would adversely affect the Government, then alternate offers may be considered technically unacceptable for the current acquisition and award made to the otherwise acceptable offeror. The benefits which may accrue to the Government, if the alternate item were accepted, must be weighed against any adverse effects caused by delaying award. Consideration shall be given to requesting expedited evaluation if the benefits are significant. For automated procurements, offers of alternate product (which includes offers of previously reverse-engineered product) will not be evaluated for the instant procurement, but will be evaluated for potential use on future procurements. The clause may still be included in the solicitation for purposes of informing vendors about necessary submissions for evaluation under current or future procurements. Offers of alternate product will not be evaluated for the instant procurement when acquiring Priority 1 items (IPG 1-3), items on backorder, or Not Mission Capable (NMC) items. Additionally, offers of alternate product shall not be evaluated for the instant procurement unless the contracting officer has coordinated with the Supply Planner and the Product Specialist and determined that delay of award is unlikely to result in backorders. This determination must be based on the Agency supply position, the lead time required for a technical evaluation at the cognizant Engineering Support Activity(ies), and the risk of additional lead time that may potentially be required for a first article test.

(iii) The contracting officer may forward alternate offers for technical evaluation that are not in line for award or offers that do not meet the savings threshold if other factors indicate that an evaluation should be performed. While savings may not be evident without further consideration, benefits should not be weighed only against the instant acquisition. Future benefits should be considered as well; for example, projected future savings on high demand items, breaking a chronic sole source situation, etc. The other factors must be cited on the request for evaluation that is forwarded to technical personnel. If a preaward evaluation cannot be performed for offers that meet these criteria, a postaward evaluation will be performed. Offers that do not meet the above factors will be returned to the offeror without evaluation.

(iv) When a potential contractor submits an alternate item for evaluation for which there is no active procurement request, the activity Competition Advocate, or other office if designated by local guidance, will determine if the alternate item meets the criteria for evaluation listed for alternate offers in DLAD 17.7501(b)(4)(iii) above. The same office will provide the status to parties submitting alternate items and will forward qualifying alternate items to the appropriate technical personnel with the reasons the alternate items should be evaluated. These alternate item evaluations will be tracked according to the time frames set forth in DFARS Appendix E.

(v) When a postaward evaluation is performed, the alternate item offeror will be advised of the evaluation results. The Competition Advocate, or other office if designated by local guidance, will maintain a tracking system for postaward evaluations, in order to insure followup with contractors. Technical personnel will perform a postaward evaluation within 45 days of receiving the alternate offer, unless unusual circumstances require a longer evaluation period. After the 45 days have elapsed, followups will be generated by the Competition Advocate, or other designated office, every 15 days. If the evaluation must be performed by an Engineering Support Activity, the time allowed for evaluation is 90 days with followups generated every 30 days (after the first 90 days)..

(vi) If it is determined that award will be delayed pending an alternate item evaluation, such evaluation request will be forwarded to the appropriate functional element and an estimate made of the time required for evaluation. Upon expiration of the estimated time, inquiry shall be made regarding the status of the evaluation. If the evaluation has not been completed or it is otherwise not imminent, determinations shall be made as to how much longer the evaluation will take and how much longer the award can be delayed. A new suspense shall be established based thereon, or award shall be made immediately if it is not in the Government's interest to further delay the award. Technical personnel are responsible for communication with all parties involved. The decision to hold or proceed with award should not be made until such communication is established and the status of the evaluation has been assessed as accurately as possible. Under simplified acquisition procedures, awards normally should not be held for protracted periods of time unless there are substantial benefits.

(vii) To aid in prioritizing workload, the amount of potential savings or other benefits should be included on any referrals to technical personnel together with any other pertinent factors which would influence the evaluation process.