0. RFP, AA-2027-01.pdf

(Rev. 06/26/26)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) No.: AA-2027-01

PROPOSAL DUE DATE: 10/02/2026

ALS-U Storage Ring Power Supplies Rack Design

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: 541330 – Engineering Services

Procurement Point of Contact: Arielle Anoop

Email: AAnoop@lbl.gov

University of California, Managing and Operating Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Request for Proposal No. AA-2027-01

1. INTRODUCTION

The University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (“University” or “LBNL”) requests a proposal for detailed design of the ALS-U Storage Ring Power Supplies rack assemblies, in accordance with this RFP, Sample Subcontract, Statement of Work AL-1964-3328 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 9/18/2026

Pre-Proposal Conference

(virtual meeting via Zoom)

Week of 9/28/2026 Details will be provided to recipients

Offeror Questions Due 9/24/2026

Proposals Due 10/02/2026 Table 1

1.1 Estimated Term

It is expected that the term of the agreement will be in effect until January 2029.

1.2 NAICS Code and Small Business Size Standard

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this acquisition is 541330, Engineering Services. The corresponding small business size standard for this acquisition is $25.5 million in average annual receipts.

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.

1.3 Pre-Proposal Conference

The University reserves the right to conduct a pre-proposal conference, as necessary. The University will clarify information about the project intended to be of interest to all offerors. All potential offerors are invited to attend. The University Procurement Representative will contact identified offerors with information about any such pre-proposal conference.

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 October 2, 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 September 24, 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 stated in Section 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.1 and 2.4.3.2 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 Section 2.4.2.1 and 2.4.3.1 and

2.4.3.2. The University reserves the right to award to other than the lowest price offeror. 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.

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

Volume Factor

Technical Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical Approach & Detailed Design Methodology

Factor 2: Schedule of Deliverables

Factor 3: Principal Personnel

Factor 4: Past Performance

Factor 5: Quality Assurance & Configuration Control

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 for rating:

● 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 – Technical Approach & Detailed Design Methodology

The technical proposal should demonstrate the soundness, thoroughness, and technical rigor of the offeror's design approach to successfully meet all of the requirements contained in the Statement of

Work (SOW) as part of this RFP:

• Computer Aided Design (CAD) & Thermal Layout Logic: The quality of the proposed workflow to generate 3D Inventor models validating component fit, internal airflow/thermal management, copper bus bar routing, and harness clearance across all 16 rack variants (6

Standard, 6 Hard Bend, 4 ATS/STA).

• Integration of LBNL Inputs: The efficiency of the approach to leverage LBNL-provided preliminary layout profiles, 3D Inventor libraries, and reference Accumulator Ring (AR) rack packages while developing unaddressed design details.

• Post Design Support: The feasibility and responsiveness of the proposed plan to provide post-design vendor clarification responses, material submittal reviews, and drawing updates during component fabrication.

The offeror will be evaluated based on an approach that successfully addresses the University’s requirements.

• Factor 2 – Schedule of Deliverables

The technical proposal should demonstrate a schedule that demonstrates the logic, critical path controls, and risk management of all requirements contained in the SOW of this RFP.

• Parallel Execution Plan: The technical logic demonstrating how parallel design workflows will be managed to ensure early delivery of Standard Sector Racks while achieving full completion by January 31, 2027.

• Review Gate Integration: The realistic integration of mandatory two week LBNL review windows following each of the six design review milestones (PDR and FDR for each of the 3 rack types), including schedule float to absorb design iterations.

The offeror may provide an alternative schedule for delivery which will be evaluated based on whether or not it is in the best interest of LBNL.

The offeror will be evaluated based on a schedule that successfully meets the University’s

• Factor 3 – Principal Personnel

The offeror must also identify and provide resumes for principal personnel, including personnel serving the Quality Assurance function, who will perform on the proposed Subcontract. Consideration is given to the personnel’s relevant experience performing similar work. The University reserves the right to request additional information and to check references as appropriate.

The offeror will be evaluated based on the supporting documentation as it relates to the University’s

● Factor 4 – Past Performance

The technical proposal should demonstrate the offeror's track record on similar projects:

• Relevant Project History: Demonstrated success in executing detailed design packages for complex electro-mechanical, scientific, or industrial power distribution equipment within the last

3 years for up to 2 similar projects of size and complexity. Demonstration shall also include evidence of on-time delivery schedule.

o Included in the description should be the client/customer technical and business contact information (name, title, telephone number and/or e-mail).

The offeror must provide the number of termination-for-default notices received over the past three years, either directly or as a partner, member of an LLC, joint venture, or other similar relationship.

Please state if no termination for default notices have been received.

The offeror must include a summary of each termination for default notice if applicable. The offeror must also disclose any contract/subcontract performance incidents where litigation has been initiated over the past three years. However, in such instances, the offeror will not be required to submit attorney-client privileged information or be required to disclose specific details surrounding the incident.

The offeror will be evaluated based on the supporting evidence submitted that demonstrates recent and relevant experience to successfully meet the University’s requirements.

● Factor 5 – Quality Assurance & Configuration Control

The technical proposal should also demonstrate internal quality protocols:

• Drafting QA/QC: Quality control procedures used to verify CAD assemblies, fabrication drawing callouts, and Bill of Materials (BOM) accuracy prior to formal CAM submittal.

• Configuration Management: Design change control procedures to manage drawing revisions during review cycles and fabrication support.

• ALS-U QA Survey completion

The offeror shall submit the above evidence and will be evaluated based on their Quality Assurance

Systems and any certifications that are the basis for the design that will meet the University’s

2.4.3.1 Enclosures

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

• Representations & Certifications

• ALS-U QA Survey – AL-1208-0209

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. Documents may be obtained from LBNL via

[https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1lVLQphc5On3Uki29Zgcj63Htsmv-ZnUj]. 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 total firm fixed price for the design package and a price for hourly support.

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 E-Verify Program Enrollment Verification

The Subcontract will include FAR Clause 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification. Accordingly, the selected offeror will be required to:

1. Be enrolled in the Government’s online E-Verify system, which is located at:

https://everify.uscis.gov/account/enroll and, if necessary, provide the University with written verification of the enrollment;

2. Use the E-Verify system to verify the employment eligibility of all employees assigned to the

Subcontract and of all new hires working in the United States, except that if the selected offeror is an institution of higher education as defined at 20 U.S.C. 1001(a), or a state or local government, or the government of a federally recognized Indian tribe, it may choose to verify only new hires assigned to the Subcontract; and

3. Include the clause in lower-tier subcontracts for construction or services exceeding $3,500, as required by the clause, and, if necessary, provide the University with written verification of the inclusion of the clause in the subcontracts and the lower-tier subcontractors’ enrollment in the E-

Verify system.

Additional information about the employment eligibility verification requirements is available at http://www.uscis.gov/everify.

3.4 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.

https://everify.uscis.gov/account/enroll http://www.uscis.gov/everify

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)