Enclosure 4- Evaluation Criteria - Cost of Cathode Matls Mfg.docx

RFP No. 2-B148-P-00143-00

ENCLOSURE NO. 4

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The offeror MUST provide a detailed response to each of the evaluation criteria in the order prescribed below:

I. Evaluation

Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the Argonne National Laboratory approved Procurement Rules based on the Evaluation Criteria set forth below.

II. Overall Relative Importance of Proposal Parts

The Technical Proposal is of greater importance than the Cost Proposal. While the Cost Proposal may not be the controlling factor for award, it will be a significant part of the Laboratory’s selection decision. The Laboratory shall make a selection for award based on the principles of best value. Best value is expected to result from selection of the highest technical acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated proposed cost. However, it may be in the best interest of the Laboratory to consider award to other than the offeror with the lowest evaluated proposed cost if the perceived technical advantages of a higher evaluated proposed cost proposal merit the additional higher proposed cost.

The Technical Proposal will be adjectivally scored of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable in accordance with the criteria described below. In order to facilitate review of the technical proposals, the information presented should follow the same format and arrangement sequence as outlined below in Section III. Technical Evaluation Criteria.

III. Evaluation Criteria

A. Technical Evaluation Criteria

The Laboratory will use the technical evaluation criteria enumerated below to evaluate the merit of the Technical Proposals and will utilize the following “relative importance” hierarchy during the evaluation process: listed in descending order of importance.

1. Technical Approach: Discuss the data source(s) which serves as the basis for the design and cost.

2. Discuss the approach to addressing the specifications in the process flow diagram, material, and energy balance.

3. Discuss the approach to compiling the bill of materials and cost components identified in the SOW.

4. Discuss the approach to compiling and delivering a final report. If possible, provide a sample “Table of Contents of Final Report” addressing requirements in SOW.

B. 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; and ability and commitment to service.

C. Past Performance

Offerors shall be evaluated on their past performance in providing similar services to those solicited in this RFP and shall provide documentation necessary to adequately evaluate the Offeror’s capability to successfully perform the requirements stated in the RFP.

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: references from at least two clients for whom your firm has provided incurred services, preferably clients with whom you have contracted personnel with similar experience as specified in Appendix “B”, Argonne National Laboratory, Statement of Work, dated February 3, 2022. Include for each reference the company name, point of contact, and contact email address. References may be commercial or government customers.