Enclosure 3_Evaluation-Criteria.doc
DOC document 69 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Chicane Magnets
- Solicitation number
- 4-B160-P-00193-00
- Issued by
-
Department of Energy Office of Science
About this file
This document is the Evaluation Criteria for the Chicane Magnets procurement solicitation issued by Argonne National Laboratory.
The key details are:
- The technical evaluation criteria are listed in order of importance as: 1) field performance of the magnet(s), 2) preliminary design to support magnet performance, 3) power and cooling requirements, 4) quality assurance, and 5) delivery lead-time.
- The past performance criteria require offerors to provide details on 3 similar contracts completed in the last 5 years, including client information and performance data.
- Proposal risk will be evaluated based on the offeror's understanding of the scope, ability to successfully perform the contract, and details of service and support capability.
- The solicitation number is 4-B160-P-00193-00, the opportunity type is a Solicitation, and the procurement is for Extraction Chicane Magnets for the ATLAS Multi-User Upgrade (AMUU) Project at Argonne National Laboratory.
- Proposals are due by June 24, 2024 and the contract must be completed within 9 months of award. The agency is the Department of Energy Office of Science.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Addendum 03.doc | DOC document | |
| Addendum 02.doc | DOC document | |
| Addendum 01.doc | DOC document | |
| Request for Proposal 4-B160-P-00193-00.doc | DOC document | |
| Enclosure 2_ANL-70B Reps and Certs.doc | DOC document | |
| Appendix B Argonne National Laboratory SOW.pdf | ||
| Enclosure 4_Request for Proposal Instructions.doc | DOC document | |
| Appendix D8C-12-DEC-2023.pdf | ||
| Appendix A-71COM-13-FEB-2023.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Lemont, IL 60439
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The technical evaluation team will review the packages submitted by the offerors. The Specification provided to the offerors will form the basis for the evaluation. Listed below are the various criteria for the evaluation of the bid packages.
This document contains evaluation criteria that are intended to assist in judging the adequacy of responses to the RFP for the ………………….. Sections 1-3 in the Technical Specification indicate the minimum requirements in order to meet the evaluation criteria listed below.
1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
For proposal evaluation against Technical Specifications, the Offeror shall provide as part of their response a description of the system design and any hardware and software components. Evaluation criteria are listed in order of importance:
| No. |
| Criterion |
| 1. |
| Field performance of the magnet(s) |
| 2. |
| How well the preliminary design is developed to support the magnet(s) performance of criteria No. 1. |
| 3. |
| Power and cooling requirements of the magnet(s) |
| 4. |
| Quality assurance and control |
| 5. |
| Delivery lead-time |
2 PAST PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Offerors shall be evaluated on their past performance in providing similar equipment and services to those solicited in this RFP, and shall provide documentation needed by the representative of Argonne National Laboratory to adequately evaluate the Offeror’s capability to provide the specified system. Argonne National Laboratory reserves the right to send representatives to visit prospective supplier sites to gather additional pre-bid qualification information. Offerors are encouraged to supply a brief description of their available manufacturing, test, research and development, and maintenance facilities.
In addition to any other information that the Offeror shall provide to allow Argonne to evaluate past performance, each Offeror shall furnish with their proposal the following information:
1. A list of three (3) contracts in the past five years that have been awarded to the Offeror of approximately the same dollar magnitude as Offeror’s proposal, that have been completed and are as similar as possible in nature to the requirements covered by the technical specifications.
2. The list should provide the following information for each contract:
a. Contract Title
b. Contract Number
c. Date of Award
d. Client’s Name and Address
e. Contract Amount
f. Name of Client’s Contract(s) regarding performance evaluation
g. Telephone/Fax/E-mail numbers for Client Contract(s)
h. A copy of the Offeror’s latest audited financial statement.
i. Any sharable performance data.
3 PROPOSAL RISK
Proposal Risk shall be considered with respect to all other factors. Evaluation of Proposal Risk includes consideration of: Offeror’s demonstration of understanding of scope; risk of successful performance of the contract; ability and commitment to service and support the system and its operation over the system’s lifetime after successful execution of the award; details of service contracts, numbers, and proximity of service personnel; service response time; service contract cost; etc.
-Page 1 of 2-
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .