0. RFP, AA-2026-04.pdf

(Rev. 12/12/25)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) No.: AA-2026-04

PROPOSAL DUE DATE: April 27, 2026

Beam Position Monitor – Semi Rigid Cables

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: 334419, Other Electronic Component Manufacturing

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

University of California, Managing and Operating Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Request for Proposal No. AA-2026-04

1. INTRODUCTION

The University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (“University” or “LBNL”) requests a proposal for Beam Position Monitor – Semi Rigid Cables, 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 Request for Proposal Release April 13, 2026 Offeror Questions Due April 17, 2026 Proposals Due April 27, 2026, no later than 3PM PST Table 1

1.1 Estimated Term

It is expected that the ordered items should be delivered as outlined within the Statement of Work. This schedule will be confirmed as hard calendar dates in any resulting subcontract.

1.2 NAICS Code and Small Business Size Standard

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this acquisition is 334419, Other Electronic Component Manufacturing. The corresponding small business size standard for this acquisition is 750.

The offeror shall complete the Small Business Program Representations clause in the attached Representations and Certifications form based on this small business size standard. Refer to Subpart 19.1

- Size Standards, of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for information on calculating the number of employees.

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 Women-Owned Small Business (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.

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 3PM Pacific Time on April 27, 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 discretion. The University reserves the right to reject any proposal, to waive any minor proposal irregularities, or to cancel this RFP at any time prior to award without cost to the University. The University will not reimburse any firm for proposal preparation or any other costs related to the participation in this RFP.

2.2 Offerors’ Questions

The University will respond to questions submitted via email to the University Procurement Representative on or before 3PM Pacific Time on April 17, 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

2.3.1 Determination of Responsive and Responsible Offers

The University intends to select for award the responsive and responsible offeror(s) whose proposal demonstrates that the offeror(s) can satisfy the minimum technical requirements specified later in this RFP (if any minimum requirements are specified) and contain(s) the combination of price, performance features, and supplier attributes (described later in this RFP) offering the best overall value to the University.

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.

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 factors 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.

A responsive offeror is one whose proposal satisfies the requirements of this RFP including those listed in Section 2.4, and 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. 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 factors described in Section 2.4, below.

2.3.2 Evaluation of Supplier Attributes and Non-Technical Factors Once the University has determined offers are complete in the initial review, they will be evaluated to confirm that minimum requirements of the solicitation have been met.

The University will go on to determine the best overall value by evaluating the desired performance features, supplier attributes, and non-technical factors including the price. The University Procurement Representative will make a determination for award to the successful offeror based on the results of the evaluation.

The University’s expectations for these evaluation factors are stated in Sections 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.1 and

2.4.3.2. The University reserves the right to award to other than the lowest price offeror(s). Offerors should therefore strive to be persuasive in describing the value of their proposed performance features, supplier attributes, and other factors, including how they would enhance the likelihood of successful performance and achievement of the University’s objectives. Price will be evaluated based on the total proposed price, including freight and (if applicable) import duties and tariffs.

2.3.3 Additional Evaluation Considerations

The University’s evaluation will be based on the information provided by the offeror(s), the University’s own experience with the offeror(s), and/or information obtained from the offeror’s references and other sources. In its evaluation, the University will consider the degree of substantiation of the proposed approaches in the proposal volumes and in response to any discussions, if held. The University is not responsible for locating or securing any information which is not included in the proposal. To ensure sufficient information is available, offerors must furnish as part of their proposal all descriptive material (such as manuals, drawings, technical specifications, or other information) necessary for the University’s evaluation.

Offerors are advised that, although negotiations may follow receipt of proposals, award may be made without discussions on proposals received. If the University determines that revised proposals are necessary, the University may solicit them from only those offerors deemed to have a reasonable chance to be selected for award. An offeror is identified as having a reasonable chance of award based on the evaluation indicating they are responsive and responsible; their offer satisfies the minimum requirements of the solicitation; they have presented acceptable or strong performance features and supplier attributes;

they have sufficient bandwidth to take on new work; and their proposed pricing is considered fair and reasonable. 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

Proposals should consist of a cover letter, a technical volume, and a business volume. Offerors should submit these as separate documents.

Volume Factor

Cover Letter Per Section 2.4.1

Technical Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 – Ability to Meet Technical Requirements

Factor 2 - Delivery & Schedule

Factor 3 - Manufacturing Capabilities and Capacity (including lower-tier subcontractors)

Factor 4 - Past Performance Producing Similar Products

Factor 5 - Quality Assurance

Business Volume

Non-Technical Evaluation Factors

Enclosures

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

Price Proposal 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, including a discussion of important performance features and supplier attributes, highlighting any aspects which may separate it from its competitors.

2.4.2.1 Technical Requirements

The technical volume should identify, describe, and discuss the following performance features and supplier attributes the University has identified as desirable for the successful performance of the proposed Subcontract. The University will use these criteria for the subjective evaluation of proposals. The criteria are listed in the relative order of importance to the University. The offeror should discuss them in the proposal and may identify other performance features and supplier attributes not listed below that the offeror believes may be of value to the University. If the University agrees, they will be considered in the evaluation process. In all cases, the University will assess the value of each proposal as submitted.

The following adjectival ratings will be used to rate the performance features and supplier attributes:

● Excellent: Proposal demonstrates excellent understanding and satisfaction of the University’s requirements. Its approach significantly exceeds the desired performance features and supplier attributes and is highly beneficial to the University. There are no evaluated weaknesses.

● Good: Proposal demonstrates good understanding and satisfaction of the University’s requirements.

Its approach exceeds the desired performance features and supplier attributes and is beneficial to the University. There are no significant evaluated weaknesses.

● Acceptable: Proposal demonstrates an adequate understanding and satisfaction of the University’s requirements. Its approach satisfies most desired performance features and supplier attributes and is beneficial to the University. There may be minor, but correctable evaluated weaknesses.

● Unacceptable: Proposal fails to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the University’s requirements or its approach fails to meet desired performance features or supplier attributes that are beneficial to the University. There are unacceptable weaknesses that can only be met with major changes to the proposed approach.

Factor 1 - Ability to Meet Technical Requirements.

The technical proposal should demonstrate the offeror’s ability to successfully meet the technical specifications set out in the Statement of Work (AL-1873-9868). The technical proposal should include but not be limited to the following;

• Ability to perform the work outlined in SOW: AL-1873-9868 o Section 2 Scope of Work

• Meet the technical requirements of SOW: AL-1873-9868 o Section 1.2 Description and Requirements

The offeror will be evaluated on its responses that successfully address the University’s requirements.

Factor 2 – Delivery & Schedule

The offeror shall submit a schedule and unit deliveries, referenced in calendar days, which addresses all requirements contained in the SOW of this RFP.

Offeror’s documentation submitted should address but not be limited to the following sections of the

SOW;

o Section 1.2 Description and Requirements o Section 3 Deliverables and Schedule o Section 8.3 Factory Inspection and Test Plan

Additionally, the offeror shall provide:

a) Proposed lead times and the ability to meet the projected delivery schedules

b) Proposed carrier and estimate of total shipping costs

c) The offeror may also propose an alternate delivery schedule that would result in a cost avoidance and ultimately a better overall value to the Laboratory. Acceptance of the alternate schedule will be at the sole discretion of LBNL.

Please state whether an expedited delivery schedule is feasible. If available, include the proposed delivery timeline and any incremental costs associated with expediting.

The offeror will be evaluated on its submitted schedule and delivery that successfully meets the University’s requirements.

Factor 3 - Manufacturing Capabilities and Capacity (including lower-tier subcontractors).

The offeror shall provide a plan to successfully demonstrate the offeror’s resources and project management support that are adequate to deliver these devices 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 name it’s lower-tier subcontractors and provide a synopsis of its experience in working together with them.

Additionally, the offeror shall provide:

• Indicate which manufacturing, inspection and testing activities are intended to be performed in-house vs by lower-tier subcontractors.

• Present equipment and production spaces intended for manufacturing and assembling of components.

• Identify any fabrication subcontractors that will be used during production and what efforts they will be responsible for.

• Identify where all required tests and inspections are performed and identify related equipment and/or facilities.

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated regarding the narrative of their approach and execution plan to satisfy and execute all the requirements as described in this RFP.

Factor 4 – Past Performance Producing Similar Products.

The offeror shall submit documentation for up to 2 similar/comparable products delivered within the last 3 years of successful performance of similar work demonstrating that the offeror has experience performing similar work in a quality manner.

a) The offeror will be evaluated based on their submittals and their ability to successfully plan and execute the manufacture of similar/comparable products that meet the criteria for similar light source projects, under similar circumstances and schedule requirements.

b) The offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on information provided by past customers and examples of recent prior contracts. Included in the description of these contracts should be the client/customer technical and business contact information (name, title, telephone number, and/or e-mail

The offeror may utilize Past Performance Reference Information Form, AA-2026-04 included with this RFP to provide the above information.

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the supporting evidence submitted that demonstrates recent and relevant experience.

Factor 5 – Quality Assurance

The offeror should provide a copy of their Quality Management System (QMS) or Quality Assurance (QA) Program Manual that demonstrates how Quality Assurance is incorporated into its policies, processes, and work activities. The QMS or QA Program may be a standalone document or QA Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that collectively describe the QMS or QA Program. QA program requirements will be flowed down to lower-tier offerors and subcontractors. The basis for the offeror’s QMS or QA Program should be American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA-1), International Standards Organization (ISO) 9001, or other QMS/QA industry standard. The offeror should provide any applicable third-party accreditation(s) of their QMS or QA Program for the requested item(s)/service(s) (e.g., ISO, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP), DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP), Automotive Service Excellence (ASE), Accredited Quality Contractor (AQC), National Environmental Balancing Bureau (NEBB) Firm Accreditation, Testing, Adjusting and Balancing Bureau (TABB) Certified Commissioning Contractor (CCC)). The offeror will also complete and return the ALS-U Supplier Quality Evaluation Survey AL-1208-0209 for the University to assess their capabilities.

The offeror shall submit evidence and will be evaluated to confirm their complete Quality Assurance Systems and any certifications that are the basis for their manufacture and quality assurance will meet the requirements of this RFP. The offeror shall also submit a complete ALS-U Supplier Quality Evaluation Survey AL-1208-0209. Offeror’s documentation submitted should include but not be limited to the following;

a) Completion of the ALS-U QA survey – AL-1208-0209

b) Indication of all current certifications for production standards such as ISO programs.

c) A quality manual or quality plan that outlines the processes that will be utilized to ensure

ALS-U QC standards are satisfied.

d) Example of a standard non-conformance report and the change approval process.

e) Example of a material and assembly shop traveler.

f) Describe the calibration system for measuring and test equipment, including equipment identification, calibration procedure, traceability of standards to national standards, calibration intervals, and recall system.

g) If the Offeror intends to utilize lower tier subcontractors, provide a list of potential subcontractors.

2.4.3.1 Enclosures

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

• Representations & Certifications

• Price Proposal Schedule A

• Past Performance Reference Information Form

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 & Services, dated 12/12/25.

Notice: The design/documentation package and all associated documents, drawings, and records are owned by DOE. Use of the documents for any purpose outside of (1) responding to this solicitation or (2) a LBNL [fabrication or other as applicable] subcontract is strictly prohibited. No document may be distributed to others or otherwise reproduced or used without written permission from the LBNL University Procurement Representative.

2.4.3.2 Non-Technical Factors

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

2.4.3.2.1 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 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.

2.4.3.2.2 Price Proposal

Price, while being an important factor, is not in and of itself the determining factor in the selection of the successful offeror for award of the Subcontract contemplated by this solicitation. Price is not weighted;

rather, each offeror’s price will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and completeness of the proposed Subcontract price. The price proposal must include a completed Price Proposal Schedule, Attachment A.

Lump sum fixed prices should be submitted for the base work and all requested options as listed in the price proposal form. Failure to provide a price for a requested option may result in disqualification of the entire proposal, at the University’s discretion. If selection of an option would not result in a change from the offered lump sum fixed price for the base work, the offeror should insert the words “No Change” in the space provided for the price of the option. “No Change” will be interpreted to mean that the work described in the option will be completed at the same price or rates as for the base work.

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 that 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 Buy American Act Requirements - Supplies

The General Provisions of the Sample Subcontract include FAR Clause 52.225-1, Buy American Act - Supplies, which requires that only domestic end products be delivered (i.e., products manufactured in the United States or unmanufactured products mined or produced in the United States), unless a specific exception applies. The offeror is to indicate in the Representations & Certifications form, to be submitted with the proposal, whether it proposes to furnish any foreign end products.

The University may apply an exception to the Buy American Act for a proposed foreign end product if:

1. Its price, including any customs duty, is more than 20% less than the price for a comparable domestic end product available from a large business concern, or more than 30% less than the price for a comparable domestic end product available from a small business concern; or

2. A domestic end product satisfying the University’s requirements is not reasonably available.

If the offeror proposes to furnish any foreign end product, the proposal should also include information and data supporting its use as an exception to the Buy American Act. Refer to FAR Clause 52.225-1 for the definition of end product, domestic end product, and foreign end product.

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)