N.M. Admin. Code § 1.4.1.24

Current through Register Vol. 35, No. 21, November 5, 2024

Section 1.4.1.24 - BID EVALUATION AND AWARD

A. General: A contract solicited by competitive sealed bids shall be awarded with reasonable promptness by written notice to the lowest responsible bidder. The IFB shall set forth the requirements and criteria that will be used to determine the lowest responsive bid. No bid shall be evaluated for any requirement or criterion that is not disclosed in the IFB. Contracts solicited by competitive sealed bids shall require that the bid amount exclude the applicable state gross receipts tax or local option tax but that the contracting agency shall be required to pay the tax including any increase in the tax becoming effective after the contract is entered into. The tax shall be shown as a separate amount on each billing or request for payment made under the contract.

B. Product acceptability: The IFB shall set forth all evaluation criteria to be used in determining product acceptability. It may require the submission of bid samples, descriptive literature, technical data, or other material. It may also provide for accomplishing any or all of the following prior to award:

(1) inspection or testing of a product for such characteristics as quality or workmanship;

(2) examination of such elements as appearance, finish, taste or feel; or

(3) other examinations to determine whether it conforms with other purchase description requirements.

C. Purpose of acceptability evaluation: An acceptability evaluation is not conducted for the purpose of determining whether one bidder's item is superior to another's but only to determine that a bidder's offering is acceptable as set forth in the IFB. Any bidder's offering which does not meet the acceptability requirements shall be rejected as non-responsive.

D. Brand-name or equal specification: Where a brand-name or equal specification is used in a solicitation, the solicitation shall contain explanatory language that the use of a brand name is for the purpose of describing the standard of quality, performance and characteristics desired and is not intended to limit or restrict competition. When bidding an "or equal" the burden of persuasion is on the supplier or manufacturer who has not been specified to convince the procurement officer that their product is, in fact, equal to the one specified. The procurement officer is given the responsibility and judgement for making a final determination on whether a proposed substitution is an "or equal".

E. Determination of lowest bidder: Following determination of product acceptability as set forth in Subsections B, C and D of this section, if any is required, bids will be evaluated to determine which bidder offers the lowest cost to the state in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the IFB. Only objectively measurable criteria that are set forth in the IFB shall be applied in determining the lowest bidder. Examples of such criteria include, but are not limited to, discounts, transportation costs and ownership or life-cycle formulas. Evaluation factors need not be precise predictors of actual future costs, but to the extent possible the evaluation factors shall be reasonable estimates based upon information the state has available concerning future use.

(1) Prompt payment discounts. Prompt payment discounts shall not be considered in computing the low bid. Such discounts may be considered after award of the contract.

(2) Trade discounts. Trade discounts shall be considered in computing the low bid. Such discounts may be shown separately, but must be deducted by the bidder in calculating the unit price quoted.

(3) Quantity discounts. Quantity discounts shall be included in the price of an item. Such discounts may not be considered where set out separately unless the IFB so specifies.

(4) Transportation costs. Transportation costs shall be considered in computing the low bid. Such costs may be computed into the bid price or be listed as a separate item.

(5) Total or life-cycle costs. Award may be determined by total or life-cycle costing if so indicated in the IFB. Life-cycle cost evaluation may take into account operative, maintenance, and money costs, other costs of ownership and usage and resale or residual value, in addition to acquisition price, in determining the lowest bid cost over the period the item will be used.

(6) Energy efficiency. Award may be determined by an evaluation consisting of acquisition price plus the cost of energy consumed over a projected period of use.

F. Restrictions: Nothing in 1.4.1.24 NMAC of this rule shall be deemed to permit contract award to a bidder submitting a higher quality item than designated in the IFB unless the bidder is also the lowest bidder as determined under Subsection E of this section. Further, except as provided in this Subsection F of 1.4.1.24 NMAC tion, 1.4.1.24 NMAC of this rule does not permit negotiations with any bidder. If the lowest responsive bid has otherwise qualified, and if there is no change in the original terms and conditions, the lowest responsible bidder may negotiate with the purchaser (i.e., this exception applies only to purchases and does not apply to procurements generally) for a lower total bid to avoid rejection of all bids for the reason that the lowest bid was up to ten percent higher than budgeted project funds. Such negotiation shall not be allowed if the lowest bid was more than ten percent over budgeted project funds.

G. Documentation of award: Following award, a record showing the basis for determining the successful bidder shall be made a part of the procurement file. Award in this context means the final required state agency signature on the contract(s) resulting from the procurement.

H. Publicizing awards: Written notice of award shall be sent to the successful bidder. Notice of award shall also be posted on the state purchasing website.

N.M. Admin. Code § 1.4.1.24

1.4.1.24 NMAC - Rn 1.4.1.24 NMAC, 08-30-13, Adopted by New Mexico Register, Volume XXXIII, Issue 12, June 21, 2022, eff. 6/21/2022