0. RFP AA-2026-01, SR Magnet Support Stud Kits.pdf

(12/12/25)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) No.: AA-2026-01

PROPOSAL DUE DATE: February 13, 2026

Storage Ring (SR) Magnet Support Assemblies for Advanced Light Source Upgrade (ALS-U)

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: 333248, All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing

This solicitation is a small business set-aside.

Procurement Point of Contact: Arielle Anoop Telephone No: (510) 486-5519 Email: AAnoop@lbl.gov

University of California, Manager and Operator of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Request for Proposal No. AA-2026-01

1. INTRODUCTION

The University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ("University" or "LBNL") requests a proposal for production of all kitted hardware for the Advanced Light Source Update (ALS-U) Storage Ring (SR) Magnet Vertical Support Kits, in accordance with this RFP, Sample Subcontract, and other enclosures.

This solicitation is governed by procurement policies and procedures established under the University’s Prime Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 with the U.S. Government, represented by the Department of Energy (DOE), for management and operation of LBNL. Proposals submitted will be treated as offers and any resulting award(s) will be a Subcontract under the University’s Prime Contract.

Timeline of Events Offeror Questions Due January 22, 2026 Proposals Due February 13, no later than 3:00PM Pacific Time

Table 1

1.1 Estimated Term

The ordered items must be delivered 8 Weeks ARO and any awarded Subcontract will include this schedule as a firm calendar date.

1.2 Notice of Small Business Set-Aside

Proposals are solicited exclusively from small business concerns, as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 2.1. Any award(s) resulting from this solicitation will only be made to a small business concern. The University will accept offers from joint ventures or teaming arrangements with large business concerns.

Under 15 U.S.C. 645(d), any person who misrepresents a firm's status as a business concern that is small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, service-disabled veteran-owned small, economically disadvantaged women-owned small, or women-owned small eligible under the WOSB Program in order to obtain a contract to be awarded under the preference programs established pursuant to section 8, 9, 15, 31, and 36 of the Small Business Act or any other provision of Federal law that specifically references section 8(d) for a definition of program eligibility, shall -

(i) Be punished by imposition of fine, imprisonment, or both;

(ii) Be subject to administrative remedies, including suspension and debarment; and

(iii) Be ineligible for participation in programs conducted under the authority of the Act.

2. SOLICITATION RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION FOR AWARD

2.1 General

The offeror must submit documentation illustrating their approach for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Failure to submit any of the information required by this solicitation may be cause for unfavorable consideration or exclusion from further consideration. Proposals must be written in English and be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation.

http://uscode.house.gov/browse.xhtml;jsessionid=114A3287C7B3359E597506A31FC855B3

Written proposals must be submitted by email (or other form of secure electronic submission) to the University Procurement Representative (AAnoop@lbl.gov) no later than 3:00PM Pacific Time on February 13, 2026.

All correspondence in conjunction with this solicitation must be directed to the University Procurement Representative. Proposals shall be valid for a period of 90 days from the proposal due date. Acceptance of late proposals will be at the University’s sole discretion. The University reserves the right to reject any proposals, to waive any minor irregularities in any proposal, or to cancel this RFP at any time prior to award without cost to the University. The University will not directly reimburse any organization for any proposal preparation or any other costs related to this RFP.

2.2 Offerors’ Questions

The University will respond to questions submitted in writing to the University Procurement Representative on or before 3:00PM Pacific Time on January 22, 2026. Questions submitted after this date may not be answered prior to the proposal due date. Answers to questions that are submitted timely will be issued or be made available to all offerors electronically, ensuring that the identity of all offerors will remain anonymous.

2.3 Evaluation and Selection

The University intends to select the responsive, responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be technically acceptable and offers the lowest evaluated price. A responsive offeror is one whose proposal satisfies the requirements of this RFP, including the requirements of the Sample Subcontract and its incorporated documents. A responsible offeror is one that has adequate financial resources, ability to comply with the performance schedule, has a satisfactory performance record, has the necessary technical skills to be considered capable of performing and is otherwise eligible and qualified to perform the proposed Subcontract at the time of award. An offeror cannot be determined as “responsible” if it is currently ineligible for receiving new federal government prime contracts or subcontracts.

An initial review of offers will be performed by the Procurement Specialist to determine if the offer is complete and provides all the required information to enable the University to evaluate the offer to determine if it is responsive. The determination of responsiveness and responsibility of complete offers will be made by a team consisting of technical and procurement personnel and considering the evaluation criteria described in Section 2.4, below.

Offerors may be contacted only for clarification purposes during the initial review. Incomplete offers may be considered non-responsive and may be excluded from further consideration if the omissions are substantive (e.g., one or more required documents not submitted, one or more evaluation criteria not addressed). Offerors will be notified when appropriate in the interest of fair business practice and professional courtesy if their offer was determined non-responsive and/or not meeting minimum requirements and the reasons for rejection will be provided if a debrief is requested.

For those offerors which are determined to be technically acceptable, award will be made to that offeror with the lowest overall price. While the University will strive for maximum objectivity, the technical go/no go process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the evaluation process. Offerors, therefore, must demonstrate that they meet or exceed the requirements of the Sample Subcontract.

The University’s evaluation will be based on the information provided by the offeror, the University’s own experience, and/or information from the offeror’s customers and other sources. Offerors are advised that, although negotiations may follow receipt of proposals, award may be made without discussions on proposals received. Thus, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms of price, technical compliance, and completeness.

If the University determines that revised proposals are necessary, the University may solicit them from only those offerors deemed by the University (based upon evaluation of the current proposal) to have a reasonable chance to be selected for award. The University reserves the right to make no awards, a single award, or multiple awards as a result of this solicitation, if it is in the best interest of the University.

2.4 Proposal Submittal Requirements

The proposal should consist of a cover letter, technical volume, and a business volume. Offerors should submit these as separate documents. All proposals must be submitted in the following formats: MS Word, MS Excel, PDF, or an alternate format approved by the University Procurement Representative.

Please submit the following items with your proposal. Please note an explanation of each item is provided after the table below.

Volume Criteria

Cover Letter Per Section 2.4.1

Technical Volume

Technical Evaluation Criteria

Criterion 1 – Ability to Meet Technical Requirements

Criterion 2 – Manufacturing Capabilities and Capacity (including lower-tier subcontractor)

Criterion 3 - Delivery & Schedule

Criterion 4 - Prior Experience and Past Performance

Criterion 5 - Adequate Quality Management System or Quality Assurance Program

Business Volume

Non-Technical Evaluation Criteria

Enclosures Offeror’s Acceptance of the terms, conditions, general provisions, and other incorporated documents of the Sample Subcontract Price Proposal, Schedule A

Table 2

2.4.1 Cover Letter

The cover letter must identify the offeror’s name and address, solicitation number and title, the name(s), title(s), email address(es), and telephone number(s) of the individuals in offeror’s organization who have commitment authority on behalf of the offeror and will be responsible for contractual negotiations and administration of any resultant Subcontract.

2.4.2 Technical Volume

The technical volume should contain a comprehensive discussion of how the offeror will fulfill the technical requirements and successfully perform the Subcontract.

The University will evaluate the offeror’s technical acceptability and capability to successfully perform the requirements of the Subcontract. In order to be considered technically acceptable, an offeror’s technical proposal must pass all technical criteria listed below, and failure to meet any one criterion will deem the entire proposal technically unacceptable. The possible proposal ratings are Pass (meets or exceeds requirements) or Fail (does not meet requirements).

The technical volume must demonstrate that the following acceptability standards are met or exceeded:

• Criterion 1 – Ability to Meet Technical Requirements

The technical proposal must demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully meet the technical specifications set out in the Statement of Work (SOW) AL-1772-1589 entitled Statement of Work for the ALS-U SR Magnet Vertical Supports, Rev. A dated November 6, 2025, and drawings as listed.

The technical proposal must address the ability to meet the following requirements:

1. Statement of Work, AL-1772-1589:

a. Section 2 – Scope of Work

b. Section 3 - Deliverables

c. Section 8 - Applicable Documents

Evaluation for Factor 1 is based on the extent to which the Offeror has provided evidence that all requirements can be met.

• Criterion 2 – Manufacturing Capabilities and Capacity (including lower-tier subcontractor)

The offeror must provide a plan to successfully demonstrate the offeror’s resources and project management support that is adequate to deliver the kits on schedule, using a quality-controlled manufacturing process, and include adequate procurement capabilities, fabrication facilities, and testing facilities to execute the subcontract. The offeror will also provide a synopsis of its experience in working together with its lower-tier subcontractors if applicable.

The Offeror must also meet these following:

a) Possess and maintain a mechanical Coordinate Measurement Machine (CMM) or equivalent calibrated device

b) All Subcontractors and subcontracted equipment, if any, are identified;

c) Documentation of equipment specifications, including measurement envelope size and accuracy, calibration records, and photographs are provided (required; must include Subcontracted equipment, if used).

Evaluation for Criterion 2 is based on the extent to which the Offeror has provided evidence that the CMM or equivalent calibrated device are sufficient to achieve drawing measurement requirements and will be available for use.

• Criterion 3 - Delivery & Schedule

The offeror must submit a delivery schedule that addresses all requirements contained in Statement of Work (SOW) AL-1772-1589 entitled Statement of Work for the ALS-U SR Magnet Vertical Supports, Rev. A dated November 6, 2025; including but not limited to the following section of the SOW:

o Section 3 - Deliverables

The offeror’s documentation must include but not be limited to the following:

1) Proposed lead times and the ability to meet the projected delivery schedule

2) Proposed carrier and estimate of total shipping costs

3) Firm, calendar delivery dates

The offeror may submit an alternate schedule and delivery date with justification for additional lead time or a delivery schedule that meets or beats the project schedule requirements. Acceptance of an alternate schedule will be at the sole discretion of the University.

Evaluation of Criterion 3 is based on an acceptable delivery & schedule that meets project requirements.

• Criterion 4 – Prior Experience and Past Performance

The offeror must have successfully performed within the last 2 years, contracts similar in type and complexity as the proposed Subcontract.

The Offeror demonstrates applicable experience by providing:

a) Identification and age or length of use of the Inventory Management System (IMS) and

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)

b) A description of at least two contracts within the last three years of successful performance of work similar in scope and type; Including kitting and inventory management

c) Letters of reference, project documentation, examples of challenges encountered and overcome, and corrective actions taken to demonstrate quality work;

d) Contact information for a reference for one of the described projects (name, title, telephone number, and/or email address).

Evaluation of Criterion 4 is based on the supporting evidence submitted that demonstrates recent and relevant experience, including work that requires inventory management and kitting.

• Criterion 5 – Adequate Quality Management System or Quality Assurance Program

As part of the request for proposal (RFP) process, the Offeror must complete the ALS-U Supplier Quality Evaluation Survey, AL-1208-0209.

The survey requires that the following is submitted:

a) Evidence of a Quality Management System (QMS) or Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control

(QC) Program in the form of a manual or QA Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs);

b) The evidence must include policies, processes, and work activities at the corporate level, including how QA requirements are flowed to lower tier subcontractors and suppliers at the project level.

c) A sample or template of a manufacturing traveler or similar tracking documentation that demonstrates how their manufacturing process is tracked and QA/QC processes are implemented.

Evaluation of Criterion 5 is based on completion of the ALS-U Supplier Quality Evaluation Survey and the extent to which responses address the QA requirements of this RFP.

2.4.3 Business Volume

2.4.3.1 Non-Technical Evaluation Criteria

The following non-technical criteria will also be evaluated as a part of the negotiation and award process.

2.4.3.1.2 Enclosures

The offeror must complete the following enclosures and submit them with the business volume:

• Representations & Certifications

• Price Proposal Schedule, Attachment A

• ALS-U supplier quality evaluation survey AL-1208-0209 Rev. C Dated 03/25/2024

The following enclosures are provided for informational purposes and do not need to be returned with the proposal:

• Sample Subcontract and its Incorporated Documents including General Provisions for Commercial Supplies and Services, dated 12/12/2025.

2.4.3.1.3 Offeror’s Acceptance of Terms and Conditions

Offeror’s Acceptance of the terms, conditions, general provisions, and other incorporated documents of the Sample Subcontract.

The offeror should accept the terms, conditions, general provisions, and other incorporated documents of the Sample Subcontract, including the requirement to include clauses in its lower-tier subcontracts at any tier, to the extent applicable. The terms and conditions of the Sample Subcontract have been approved by the DOE, and it is not the University’s intent to make material changes. While an offeror may identify “exceptions” to the Sample Subcontract, such exceptions may reflect unfavorably upon the offeror’s proposal. Exceptions make it difficult to compare competing offers, and the process of resolving exceptions may be time-consuming and result in unacceptable delays in the award of a Subcontract.

The offeror should include in its proposal a statement that the offeror takes no exceptions to the terms, conditions, general provisions, or the incorporated documents of the Sample Subcontract. The offeror should include in its request for consideration of exceptions a redlined version of the Sample Subcontract with all proposed revisions indicated by tracked changes, or a separate sheet with all proposed revisions indicated by tracked changes, referencing the article or clause to which the proposed revision applies. The offeror must also include in its request for consideration of any exception, a business case for that exception, providing a justification for the requested change and an analysis of any increased risk to the University.

The University will attempt to resolve exceptions in a timely manner through an iterative process and with review, concurrence, and/or approval of both the University and DOE. However, offerors are advised that when exceptions cannot be resolved and agreement cannot be reached on terms and conditions, award will not be made to otherwise successful offerors.

2.4.3.1.4 Price Proposal

The price proposal must include a total firm fixed and a completed Price Schedule, Attachment A.

3. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

3.1 Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Proposal Data.

The University will safeguard any commercial or financial data or information contained in proposals when marked in accordance with paragraph (e) of Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.215-1. Such data or information includes (i) trade secrets or (ii) commercial or financial information which is privileged or considered business confidential, either of which is developed at private expense.

The University will endeavor to properly maintain such data and information to the same degree as its own data and information and not disclose such data or information to individuals other than those working for the University or the Government on this procurement. These individuals will be bound by an obligation of confidentiality to use such data or information solely for the purpose of evaluation of the proposal. Proposals received will be retained and disposed of in accordance with requirements in the University’s Prime Contract with DOE.

If the offeror intends to use a product or process for which there is a patent position, the proposal should so indicate and list patent applications and/or patents granted (including dates, numbers, and descriptions), and whether the Government has rights related to the patents.

3.2 Export Control Classification Information

Before Subcontract award, the offeror will provide export control classification information for all items as required by the Representations and Certifications. Items may not be accepted without the export control information required by this Request for Proposal.

If any of the ordered items (including data, software, or services) are export controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Sections 120-130, aka "ITAR"); the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Sections 730-774, aka "EAR"); the Nuclear Related Regulations (10 CFR 110 and 10 CFR 810); the Foreign Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR section 500-599, aka "OFAC"); or if sourced internationally, i.e., controlled under a country's equivalent dual use or military strategic goods list, then the Subcontractor agrees to provide the Procurement Representative with written notification of this export controlled status prior to shipment or transfer to the University. The notification must specifically identify the export-controlled item(s) and its export classification. The University reserves the right to cancel or modify any part of the Subcontract that includes export-controlled items, data, software, or services prior to accepting delivery. Subcontractor shall indemnify the University and the Government for all export enforcement mitigation cost, fines, or penalties incurred by the University, specifically arising from Subcontractor's failure to comply with this notification provision and the University's reliance on the Subcontractor's representation as provided.

3.3 Funding Availability

Funding for all of the items described in the attached Sample Subcontract may not be currently available.

The University anticipates that funding will continuously become available to allow the selected offeror to perform until completion.

3.4 Tariffs

It should be noted that if the proposed item(s) are of foreign origin and incur tariff costs upon importation, the University wishes to be the shipping importer of record and will seek reimbursement for such tariff costs under the U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Request for Duty Free Entry of Scientific Instruments or Apparatus (ITA-338P) Process in accordance with 15 CFR 301. Such process requires a Package of multiple documents, to include the Offeror’s original proposal, be submitted to support the University’s claim that such item(s) are scientific instruments, be afforded duty free entry, and previously paid tariff payments be reimbursed. If the Offeror objects to distribution of its original proposal to the Government as part of the ITA-338P Package, the Offeror shall specifically state such in its proposal response.

3.5 Notice of Sherman Antitrust Act – Federal Antitrust Enforcement This solicitation is subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act which prohibits agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or engage in other anticompetitive activity. Criminal prosecution of Sherman Act violations is the responsibility of the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice.

Violation of the Sherman Act is a felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and a $1 million fine for individuals and a fine of up to $100 million for corporations. In addition, collusion among competitors may also involve violations of the mail or wire fraud statute, the false statements statute, or other federal felony statutes, all of which the Antitrust Division prosecutes.

In addition to receiving a criminal sentence, a corporation or individual convicted of a Sherman Act violation may be ordered to make restitution to the victims for all overcharges. Additionally, under the Clayton Act, 15 15 U.S.C. §§ 12–27, 44, civil antitrust claimants may seek civil recovery of up to three times the amount of damages suffered (plus costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees) for violations of the Sherman Act, including, but not limited to bid-rigging and price-fixing conspiracies.

(END OF RFP DOCUMENT)