Loyola University Chicago


Purchasing Checklist Instructions

Instructions for Completing the Purchasing Checklist and Bid Summary Form 

A)  Must be completed a) for all purchase transactions that equal or exceed $5,000 and that are committed to a non Pre-Qualified Supplier; and b) for all purchase transactions that equal or exceed $150,000 and that are committed to a Pre-Qualified Supplier. 
B) The completed form must be sent to the Purchasing Department upon submittal of a purchase requisition or check requisition for approval. 
C)  Sectional Instructions:
  • Describe the goods and/or services being procured: Describe the product(s) or service(s) in enough detail so that an auditor, who may know nothing about what you’re procuring, can have an idea of what is being acquired (product name, model number, accessories, etc.; service type and enough specifics to define the Statement of Work). References to attachments are acceptable, but attach copies of any documents referenced. 
  • List the three most competitive quotations/proposals solicited and received: When initially planning an acquisition, multiple suppliers are generally considered. They may not be disqualified until some time during an investigative phase to identify whether there are multiple acceptable sources. Even when suppliers are eliminated due to insufficient capabilities, it should be documented that they were contacted and considered. If the total price has been discounted, show the discount terms so that the original or list price can be determined. 

  • Supplier/Consultant Selected: The rationale for selecting a particular source most often has to be explained. The checklist has several acceptable reasons for choosing a source.
    • Low Bidder - If a competition was established, and at least two comparable and acceptable bids were received (provide documented verbal quotations if $5,000 but less than $30,000; written quotations or proposals from the suppliers if $30,000), and the low bidder was selected.
    • Best Evaluated Responsible Offer – Multiple suppliers provided bids/offers, but one was evaluated to be better than the rest, and it was not the low bidder. Evaluation criteria are established prior to putting the requirement out to bid. Provide copies of quotations along with a copy of the evaluation criteria. 
    • Establish or Maintain a Capability – a single source among several was chosen due to its specialized capabilities related to research, engineering or development that the university wishes to support. A statement must be made as to acceptable reason(s) the source was chosen. 
    • Urgency – the urgency must be unusual and compelling, such as a government Priority Rating or an immediate contractual obligation. It is not an alternative to poor planning. An explanation must be provided. Customers may direct the use of this rationale if such direction is in writing. 
    • Compatibility – replacement or additional components of an existing system, or additional systems matching existing systems. A statement must be made as to the identification of the existing system(s) and its location(s). 
    • Pre-established Performance Characteristics – Competitive suppliers are competing based upon documented specifications or Statements of Work and the supplier was chosen, not based on price, but on best compliance with the performance characteristics. Documentation supporting the choice must be provided.
    • Award Identification – Supplier/Provider or Product was specifically identified and budgeted for within the customer award, provided the award proposal had sufficient source selection rationale. Provide a copy of the award page identifying the Supplier/Provider or Product, and a page showing the customer’s accepted budget for the service, product or equipment. 
    • Sole Source/Non-Competitive Proposals - Also known as sole-source procurement, this may be appropriate only when specific criteria are met.  Be advised that the new Uniform Guidance has placed a greater level of scrutiny on the use of Sole Source procurements (2 CFR 200.320).  Under the new guidance, UG has limited the use of sole (or single source) procurements to four distinct justifications. Those are:
      • Product/service is only available from a single source;
      • Public Emergency Procurement
      • Federal Awarding Agency Authorization (the awarding agency specifically authorizes a non-competitive procurement after a written request from the Non-federal entity);
      • Inadequate competition after solicitation of multiple sources
      • “Continuity of research” justification is no longer an acceptable sole source justification.
      • Every sole source will require a price/cost justification.
D) Price/Cost Analysis Based On: Every transaction using this form must have a price reasonableness determination performed and documented.
  • Adequate Price Competition – At least two of three or more bids are adequate and acceptable, and the pricing is within a competitive range (2% to 10% depending upon the commodity or service). This can be used to determine price reasonableness for low bid and best evaluated responsible offer source selections. Copies of the suppliers’ written quotes or proposals are required whenever the order is $25,000. Up to $25,000, oral quotes or proposals may be accepted, but must be documented in notes, emails or memos (contact name, phone number, and details of the quote or proposal) and provided with the checklist package. 
  • Price Sold to Federal Government – If it can be documented that the supplier has recently sold the same or substantially similar items/services to the government for the same or nearly the same price. Documentation can be a copy of an invoice or a purchase order or a copy of contractor Internet price list page (example, contractor’s Government or GSA price list). 
  • Catalog/Market Pricing – must be a current catalog or website accessible by the general public. Documentation should consist of a copy of the catalog or website page that contains the product and price, and a copy of the front page of the catalog or website identifying the supplier and the catalog effective dates. 
  • Historical Pricing – can be used if purchase was made within the last twelve months, and the previous buy is referenced by PO#. However, the previous buy must have had an adequate and acceptable “determination of price reasonableness” analysis performed. 
  • Comparison to In-house Estimate – If an in-house expert (researcher, developer, engineer, etc.) has created a breakdown of estimated cost prior to the issuance of a request for pricing, it can be used to compare the proposed supplier price for reasonableness, as long as any major differences can be explained. 
  • Comparison to Similar Items – Similar items or services can be compared to the requirement in order to determine price reasonableness. Item differences must be recorded to explain pricing variances.
  • Comparable Customer’s Invoice (educational institution) – If the supplier/provider is willing to provide a recent invoice for the same or similar items/services sold to another educational or research institution, it can be used to make a comparison.
  • Cost Analysis – a cost analysis breaks down the elements that make up a price. Those elements can be direct costs (direct labor, subcontracts, materials, facilities capital, cost of money, etc.), indirect costs (indirect labor rates, overhead pools, general & administrative costs, etc.), profit, etc. 
  • Identification in a Notice of Award (Grant/Contract) – If the award references a proposal that a) specifically identified the manufacturer, model and the price (only if a supplier quotation accompanied the proposal), or b) identified a specific person with an hourly rate for fixed price for that person, then the contracting officer has accepted that price as being deemed reasonable by the proposer and nothing else needs be done as long as the final price does not exceed the budgeted line item.
    If, however, the award is a federally funded contract or purchase order (not a grant), then the proposer must formally provide rationale with the proposal to determine price reasonableness at the time of the proposal before this method of price reasonableness is acceptable. Under FAR regulations (ref: FAR Part 15.404-3 Subcontracting Pricing Considerations), it is the responsibility of the proposer to determine price reasonableness, either at the time of proposal or at the time an acquisition is made. It is not the responsibility of the contracting officer.
    Documentation (copy of the award pages related to the acquisition and any supporting documents, i.e., copies of quotations, in-house estimates, other customer invoices, GSA pricing, etc.) supporting either of the above situations must be provided to the Purchasing Department.
E) Negotiations: The documentation of negotiations is not mandatory, but recommended when using federal funds. Auditors often look for and favor packages where the university has made an additional effort to negotiate better deals in the name of the government.
F) Certificate of Current Cost and Pricing: If federal government funds are being used and the order is equal to or exceeds $750,000, cost and pricing data should be obtained in accordance with FAR Part 15.403, as applicable.
G) Small Business Utilization: When using federal funds $150,000 under contracts, Public Law requires that certain types of small businesses must be used to the maximum practicable extent (be afforded the maximum practicable opportunity to participate). If none of these types of businesses are solicited, it must be explained why not. If solicited and not chosen, it must be explained why not. For all other procurements, use of small businesses is strongly encouraged by Loyola, as well as by federal, state, and local agencies and other institutional and private providers of funds.
H) Small Business Utilization Plan: If federal government funds are being used and the subcontract is equal to or exceeds $700,000, and the sub-award is to other than a small business, a Small Business Plan must be acquired from the sub-awardee in accordance with FAR 52-219-9.
I) Identification and Approval: Once the document has adequately been completed, the person who is filling out the details has to be identified; the department for which the items/services are for needs to be named; a departmental approval signature, other than the requester or the person filling out the form, needs to be provided; and the final, completed Checklist must be submitted to the Purchasing Department for review and acceptance.