Addendum 1 to RFP No 5-B191-P-00165-00.doc

Parker C. Hawk Procurement Specialist 2 Financial Management and Procurement Services

Procurement Department Argonne National Laboratory

9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg. 201

Lemont, IL 60439

Phone:(630)252-2731 Email:phawk@anl.gov

05/08/2025

TO ALL OFFERORS:

Subject:

Solicitation Q&A Request for FORMDROPDOWN No. 5-B191-P-00165-00 Addendum No. 1 Attached herewith for your information and use in preparing your proposal for subject project is one (1) copy of Addendum No. 1.

Kindly acknowledge receipt of this Addendum by signing and returning one (1) copy of this letter.

Please email receipt to Procurement at phawk@anl.gov Sincerely, Parker C. Hawk Procurement Specialist 2 Procurement Department

Receipt Acknowledged:

Company:

By:

cc:

File

CF

Addendum No. 1

TO

REQUEST FOR FORMDROPDOWN

5-B191-P-00165-00

FOR

Argonne National Laboratory

BLDG. 201 OCF

9700 S. Cass Ave.

Lemont, IL 60439

05/08/2025 This addendum is being issued to modify the subject FORMDROPDOWN as follows:

Clarifications:

1. Contractor question: Would experience with battery system design and testing for aviation or unmanned aerial systems (UAS) be considered technically relevant under the evaluation criteria, even though the scope focuses on ground-based vehicle applications?

Argonne’s Response: Experience in other applications are acceptable as prior experience. The proposed task must design for the automotive Medium- and Heavy-Duty vehicle pack.

2. Contractor question: Could you clarify how the evaluation balances cost realism and technical merit? Specifically, would a proposal with a higher technical score be considered favorably even if the price is slightly higher?

Argonne Response: As stated in the Evaluation Criteria Enclosure No. 4, “if a cost realism analysis is performed, cost realism may be considered by the source selection authority in evaluating performance or schedule risk” as well as “The Technical Proposal is of equal importance to the Price Proposal and Business/Management Proposal. While the Price Proposal and Business/Management Proposal may not be the controlling factor for award, they will be a significant part of the Laboratory's selection decision. The Laboratory shall make selection for award based on the principles of best value. It may be in the best interest of the Laboratory to consider award to other than the offeror with the lowest evaluated proposed price if the perceived technical and/or business/management advantages of a higher evaluated proposed price proposal merit the additional higher proposed price.” Please review the rest of the Enclosure No. 4 for additional information on the evaluation criteria.

3. Contractor question: Is there a target or ceiling budget that offerors should consider for proposal preparation?

Argonne’s Response: Argonne is not able to disclose a target or ceiling budget.

4. Contractor question: Beyond the terms outlined in Enclosure 2D (Appendix D-8), are there any additional intellectual property considerations or restrictions we should be aware of?

Argonne’s Response: The solicitation as issued includes all of the terms and conditions and proposed contract vehicle.

5. Contractor question: Can you please confirm whether submission via email is sufficient, or if proposals must be uploaded through a procurement portal?

Argonne Response: Submission via email is required

6. Contractor question: The SOW specifies required pack energies of 100, 200, and 500 kWh for both NMC811-Graphite and LFP-Graphite designs. Beyond these capacity targets, are there any specific performance requirements—such as cycle life, charge/discharge rates (C-rate), or environmental operating parameters—that should guide system design assumptions and technoeconomic modeling?

Argonne’s Response: The implicit assumption for these packs will be that they deliver the performance – cycle life, C-rate to meet acceleration, uphill, downhill, and are deployed at typical operating conditions of vehicles for the US market.

7. Contractor question: Should the technoeconomic analysis include detailed thermal/electrical performance simulations (e.g., CFD, FEA), or is the focus solely on cost and architectural considerations?

Argonne’s Response: Detailed thermal / electrical performance simulations are not necessary, but the designs should be capable of meeting the vehicle performance requirements.

8. Contractor question: The SOW mentions performance assessment “if simulation capability is available.” Would providing a basic simulation be considered an advantage in the technical evaluation?

Argonne Response: Reference to “if simulation capability is available” was not found in the SOW. For instructions and evaluation criteria regarding the requested sample report for the Technical Proposal, please see Evaluation Criteria Enclosure No. 4, Technical Evaluation Criteria Section III. A. (2) as well as Enclosure No. 1, Instructions enclosure, Section I. A. I. (2) Sample Report Template.

9. Contractor question: Applicability of Air-Based Experience:

Would experience with battery systems for aviation or unmanned aerial systems (UAS) be considered technically relevant or comparable under the evaluation criteria, even though the scope focuses on ground-based vehicle applications?

Argonne’s Response: The design has to be for ground-based vehicles. Proposers may draw on their past experience for the on-road vehicle batteries.

10. Contractor question: Evaluation Weighting on Past Collaborations:

Will prior collaborations with DOE laboratories or national lab partners be factored into the evaluation, and if so, how is that weighted?

Argonne’s Response: For instructions and evaluation criteria on past experience, please see Evaluation Criteria Enclosure No. 4, Technical Evaluation Criteria Section III. A. (3), Experience Performing Similar Work as well as Enclosure No. 1, Instructions enclosure, Section I. A. I. (3) Experience Performing Similar Work.

11. Contractor question: Could you please confirm whether there is an incumbent contractor or preferred vendor currently providing services under this or a similar scope of work? Additionally, has this requirement been previously awarded or performed under a related contract?

Argonne Response: There is no incumbent or preferred contractor.

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED RFP REMAIN THE SAME.

Attachments: 0

U. S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC