Enclosure 2 - Evaluation Criteria_Rev_260312.pdf

Date Printed 3/13/2026 1 of 5 Date Approved 01/18/2017

PROCUREMENT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIVISION

BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY

Managed by Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy

ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FORM

Form No. AMS-Form-039

Revision No. 0

APPROVED BY:

A. Guadagni /01/18/2017

PPM Manager/Date

Evaluation Criteria

RFP No. 0000472077 Title: DUNE CRP SST Frames

Noted below are the evaluation criteria and percentage distribution in order of importance identified by Tabulated sections. The point rating established below will be utilized as a guide in establishing the technical ranking of each supplier which must also be supported by each Offeror’s strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies (if applicable).

Each proposal will be evaluated based on how well the proposal meets or exceeds the requirements of the RFP.

Tab 1 – General Overview (0 Points)

The Offeror shall provide an overall general summary on how the Offeror plans to achieve the design, manufacture, testing, and delivery of the CRP-SST frame system. This is a non-detailed overview and will not be scored points.

0BTab 2 – Specification/SOW Compliance Matrix (0 Points) The Offeror shall provide a paragraph-by-paragraph compliance matrix for each section of the Technical Specification and Statement of Work (SOW) that clearly shows the Offeror’s acceptance.

A. Offerors shall list each Specification section by number and explain how they will comply with all requirements.

B. Offerors shall list each SOW section by number and explain how they will comply with all requirements.

Detailed explanations of how compliance is to be achieved is required; a list of sections solely indicating compliance is insufficient.

Any exceptions shall be clearly documented, and the Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation as to why the exception is being made along with any alternative recommendations. The compliance matrix will not be scored points.

Date Printed 3/13/2026 2 of 5 Date Approved 01/18/2017

ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT FORM

Procedure No. AMS-FORM-039

Evaluation Criteria

1BTab 3 – Fabricability and Construction Methodology (20 Points/Tab Total) The provided technical specification drawings do not detail the specific beam-to-beam connections, but does provide minimum required design tolerances.

A. The Offeror shall include and detail its proposed beam connection concepts and potential modifications for improved fabricability of the CRP SST frames. (10 Points)

B. The Offeror will need specific equipment and tooling to achieve the required tolerances. The Offeror shall provide a list of all equipment and tooling to be used in the fabrication of the CRP SST frames. The Offeror shall also provide a list of all tooling that will be used for all relevant Quality Control (QC) processes during fabrication/acceptance testing/surveying. (10 Points)

Tab 3 Evaluation Method The fabrication process and associated tooling will be evaluated to determine the likelihood of meeting or exceeding the design tolerances.

A. The proposed connection concepts will be analyzed for ingenuity and ease of fabrication. Higher point values will be awarded to Offerors that are able to demonstrate a capability to further tighten the provided fabrication tolerances.

B. The equipment and tooling list provided will be analyzed for feasibility and practicality.

2BTab 4 – Offeror’s Proposed Connection Method for Large CRP SST Subassemblies and Proposals for Improving Provided Tolerances (15 Points/Tab Total)

A. The Offeror shall detail its proposed mechanism by which the subassemblies of the large CRP SST frame can be connected together. (10 Points)

B. The Offeror shall detail proposed modifications to improve the final assembly tolerances beyond the requirements provided on the technical specification drawings. (5 Points)

Tab 4 Evaluation Method A. The proposed connection concepts will be analyzed for adjustability, ease of use, and repeatability.

B. The merit of the proposed method for improving fabrication tolerances will be analyzed in terms of complexity, feasibility, and degree of tolerance improvement.

Date Printed 3/13/2026 3 of 5 Date Approved 01/18/2017

Evaluation Criteria

3BTab 5 – Prior Experience and Past Performance Producing Comparable Stainless Steel Structures (30 Points/Tab Total)

A. The Offeror shall provide examples of experience and past performance producing comparable welded stainless steel structures over the past ten (10) years. (15 Points)

a. The Offeror shall identify how many years its company has been designing, fabricating, and surveying large, welded stainless steel structures.

i. The Offeror shall include past proof of procurement or fabrication of laser welded/EBM welded stainless steel beams with required tolerances as well as relevant QC information.

b. The Offeror shall provide a list of at least two (2) projects of comparable or higher scale and precision in which they have produced welded stainless steel structures utilizing laser welded/EBM welded stainless steel beams. The list should also include the following:

i. The contact information (name, email address, and phone number) of the owners of the produced stainless steel structures.

ii. A comparison of the specified and achieved tolerances for the structure after fabrication, particularly for structures featuring significant quantities of welded connections.

iii. A comparison of specified and achieved schedule milestones as well as delivery dates.

B. Offeror shall provide examples of previous engineering analyses similar in breadth and scope to the report requested in the Spec/SOW. (10 Points) C. The Offeror shall supply the resumes/vitae of all key project personnel such as the Project Manager, the

Engineer performing the design/analysis, and the QC Manager (5 Points)

a. The vitae should focus on pertinent experience in the design, fabrication, assembling, and surveying of comparable large, welded stainless steel structures. In particular, for all key personnel, their engineering software/tools as well as their years of experience with them, must be provided.

b. The Offeror must demonstrate an organizational capacity to supplement key personnel skill sets if required by the project.

Tab 5 Evaluation Method A. The proposal will be evaluated as to how recent, relevant, frequent, and successful the past production of comparable stainless steel structures has been, including but not limited to the technical and schedule performance as described above. The Offeror must also demonstrate that it has produced welded stainless steel structures of comparable size and scope within the past ten (10) years. An emphasis will also be placed on companies with prior experience in structures featuring tolerances similar to those present on the provided technical specification drawings.

B. The engineering reports provided will be evaluated for quality, level of detail, and compliance with industry codes and standards.

C. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated as to the range and depth of its key project personnel, resources available, and how their experience relates to the requirements of this project.

Date Printed 3/13/2026 4 of 5 Date Approved 01/18/2017

Evaluation Criteria

4BTab 6 – Fabrication Capabilities (25 Points/Tab Total) A. Offeror’s proposed fabrication and surveying plan. (15 Points)

a. Offeror shall provide a fabrication plan that identifies material sources for stainless steel beams along with the procurement timeline to support the project schedule. This plan should include, but not be limited to, a project milestone schedule consistent with the deliverables schedule presented in the SOW. Offeror shall present how they will achieve and support the design and fabrication plan submitted, assess schedule risks as well as possible opportunities to improve the overall schedule timeline. Long lead-time items should also be identified with anticipated markup. A basis for the estimate of schedule contingency must also be provided.

b. Offeror shall propose methods for the identification labelling for all individual CRP SST frames.

c. Offeror shall propose a schedule for the test assembly of the first article large CRP SST frame as well as a description of available surveying equipment to be used for acceptance testing.

i. Past experience demonstrating surveying capability for comparable fabricated structures must be provided.

B. Offeror shall provide a description of its available production facilities and capabilities, including but not limited to the spaces used for: fabrication, final assembly, surveying, testing, storage, and packaging.

(8 Points)

C. Offeror shall propose plan for the packaging, shipment, and handling of the CRP SST structures. (2 Points)

Tab 6 Evaluation Method A. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated as follows:

a. Evaluate the fabrication plan provided to determine if it meets the requirements of the SOW, including demonstrating an ability to acquire the requisite steel base materials from legitimate sources.

b. Ensure that the fabrication plan timeline is compliant with DUNE project requirements.

c. Assess data provided to determine Offeror’s capability to perform adequate surveying and acceptance testing of large stainless steel fabricated structures.

B. The Offeror’s proposed production facilities and capabilities will be evaluated to determine the quality of production spaces and overall capabilities to successfully perform all required tasks, including but not limited to the spaces used for fabrication, final assembly, surveying, testing, storage, and packaging.

C. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror is capable of safely handling and preparing completed CRP SST structures for shipment.

Date Printed 3/13/2026 5 of 5 Date Approved 01/18/2017

5BTab 7 – Quality Assurance/Quality Control (10 Points/Tab Total) A. The Offeror shall provide objective evidence that an effective QA program has been developed and implemented within their organization. The QA program shall meet the requirements of the ISO-9001 Standard, “Quality Management System Requirements,” or equivalent. This includes the submittal of an approved QA program/manual and a list of implementing procedures, which describes the QA program and a current organizational chart showing the link between Quality personnel and management. (10 Points)

Evidence shall include the submittal of documentation, which describes the following activities:

Process that ensures that personnel are trained and/or qualified to perform assigned work System used to control nonconforming material/items Process used to prepare, review, approve, distribute, and revise documents that describe processes, specify requirements, or establish design Process that defines what records shall be maintained and the system to ensure the safe keeping of those records Material management/control process, e.g., shop floor travelers, material traceability Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) Calibration program Configuration Management program applicable to all technical documents and drawings that assure: – verification and/or validation of engineering designs

– changes in configuration (affecting form, fit, function, reliability, safety, or interchangeability) are documented and approved

– end items are of the proper configuration

– approved changes are incorporated at the specified effectivity points Process to evaluate suppliers and how applicable requirements are flowed down to sub-contractors Processes used to ensure that material/items purchased, processed, and/or manufactured meet the requirements of established criteria, i.e., inspection and test

Tab 7 Evaluation Method A. The Offeror will be evaluated as to how adequate, well-documented, and well-implemented the current quality procedures and processes are, and how they meet the quality requirements defined in section 4 of the SOW, specifically that a) the Offeror has an effective QA program for the design, manufacture, and testing of all systems and equipment provided, b) that program meets the requirements of the ISO-9001 Standard, “Quality Management System Requirements,” or equivalent and c) the Offeror has supplied the necessary documentation to demonstrate this compliance.