Enclosure No. 4 - Evaluation Criteria 8.11.26.docx

ANL-830 Rev March 10, 2025 Enclosure No. 4 Evaluation Criteria RFP No. 6-B191-P-00213-00 08/11/2026 I. Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the Argonne National Laboratory approved Procurement policies based on the Evaluation Criteria set forth below for the Technical, Business/Management, and Price Proposals:

II. Overall Relative Importance of Proposal Parts

The Technical Proposal is of greater importance to the Price Proposal and Business/Management Proposal. While the Price Proposal and Business Management Proposal may not be the controlling factor for the award, they will be a significant part of the Laboratory’s selection decision. The Laboratory shall select for an award based on the principles of best value tradeoffs. The best value is expected to result from selection of the highest technical acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated proposed cost. 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 price proposal merit the additional higher proposed price.

The Technical Proposal will be scored in accordance with the criteria described in section III below, as follows:

1. Technical Proposal will be adjectivally scored of either Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable.

2. Proposal Risk criterion will be adjectivally scored of Low Risk, Moderate Risk, or High Risk.

The Price Proposal and the Business/Management Proposal will not be adjectivally scored. The Price Proposal will be evaluated based on realistic costs and the evaluated cost to the Laboratory. The Business/Management Proposal will be evaluated to determine responsiveness to the Pass-Fail Non-Technical Factors.

III. Evaluation Criteria A. Technical Proposal Criteria

The Laboratory will use the following technical evaluation criteria, listed in Descending order of importance, to evaluate the merit of the requirements as stated in the SOW:

CRITERION 1 – Experience Performing Similar Work Basis of Evaluation:

The amount, relevance, and quality of experience the firm has in conducting outplacement services similar to that listed in Appendix “B”, Statement of Work. Offerors shall also be evaluated on their past performance in providing similar scope and complexity to those solicited in this RFP. This criterion evaluates organizational experience and past performance, separate from individual personnel qualifications.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

1. Discuss the amount, relevance, and quality of experience in providing outplacement services for large reductions of employees, onsite and/or online for staff, including scientific and engineering personnel, both degreed and non-degreed.

2. Provide the time to fill through workshops, online services and executive programs.

3. In addition to any other information that the Offeror shall provide to allow Argonne to evaluate past performance, furnish the following information:

References from at least three (3) clients for whom your firm has provided services within the previous five (5) years, preferably clients with whom you have contracted personnel with similar experience as specified in Appendix “B”, Statement of Work.

Include for each reference:

1. the company name,

2. address,

3. telephone number,

4. point of contact, and

5. contract number.

References may be commercial or government customers, provided the work performed is comparable in scope and complexity. The Laboratory reserves the right to request additional information or obtain other relevant documentation, as necessary, to adequately evaluate the Offeror’s capability to successfully perform the requirements of this RFP.

CRITERION 2 – Technical Approach Basis of Evaluation:

Argonne will evaluate the Offeror’s overall technical approach to performing the requirements of Appendix “B”, Statement of Work. The evaluation will consider the soundness, completeness, and practicality of the technical approach, including the Offeror’s approach to Executive and Specialized Global Talen placement.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

Discuss the firm’s approach to conduct the work listed in Appendix “B” –Statement of Work. In particular, a detailed description of the following:

1. Describe the firm’s specialized networks established and used to successfully place scientific and engineering personnel both degreed and non-degreed, as well as, standard networks for placement of administrative support and management personnel through workshops, online services and executive programs.

2. Describe the firm’s resources i.e., facilities, location(s), personnel, management, coordination online services/resources.

3. Describe the ability to coordinate, prepare and conduct workshops for large reductions (100 or more employees) within a 30-day notification period.

CRITERION 3 – Qualifications of Personnel Basis of Evaluation:

The amount, relevance, and quality of experience, and any relevant certifications, of proposed project personnel who will be assigned to this project that possess the required skills and experience to conduct the work listed in Appendix “B”, Statement of Work. The Key Personnel resumes shall be evaluated to determine the extent, depth and quality of the Key Personnel(s)’ relevant work experience; as well as the quality and applicability of their education, technical experience, and professional development as they relate to their proposed positions in performance of this contract.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

1. The offeror will provide the names, resumes, and other information as required of the individuals they propose to supply to the Laboratory as Key Personnel.

A.1. PROPOSAL RISK EVALUATION

Basis of Evaluation:

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. Proposal Risk is an assessment of the level to which the Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of the scope, and how well the proposal addresses the needs of the project.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

To assist in our assessment of Proposal Risk, as defined in Enclosure No. 4, offerors shall provide a risk matrix and mitigation plan detailing what your firm perceives to be the biggest risks for delivering on the project, and how such risks will be handled.

B. Business/Management Proposal Criteria Basis of Evaluation:

The Business/Management Proposal will be evaluated using the Pass/Fail factors identified in Section III.B.1.

Only proposals that receive a “Pass” rating for all required elements in Section III.B.1 will be considered responsive and will proceed to further evaluation under Section III.B.2 (Financial Condition and Capability).

Failure to provide any required information identified in Section III.B.1 may result in a “Fail” rating and elimination from further evaluation. Proposals rated “Fail” will not be evaluated further, including for Financial Condition and Capability, and will be determined nonresponsive.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

1. Pass/Fail Requirements (Required for Responsiveness) This section describes the minimum required information which must be included for a responsive Business/Management Proposal.

Offerors must address each item below. Omission or material deficiency for any item may result in a “Fail” rating and elimination from any further evaluation.

Offerors should present their Business/Management Proposal using the format and sequence below:

a) Corporate profile: includes, but not limited to:

i. location of corporate headquarters and regional offices

ii. number of years in business

iii. nature and size of business and total number of customers

iv. total value of contracts over the last three (3) years

v. primary client market (academic, corporate, government)

vi. future development plans

2. Additional Evaluation (For Proposals Rated “Pass”) For proposals that receive a “Pass” under Section III.B.1, the Laboratory will evaluate for the following:

Financial Condition and Capability. The offeror’s financial condition and capability will be evaluated to determine if adequate resources are available and committed for performance. During the evaluation, financial references may be requested and contacted in order to determine the offeror’s financial stability during the past years. The adequacy of available working capital to permit performance under the agreement will be evaluated.

C. Price Proposal Criteria Basis of Evaluation:

· The Price Proposal will not be point scored but will be evaluated on the most advantageous probable cost to the Laboratory, all factors considered. While the Price Proposal may not be the controlling factor for award, it will be a significant part of the Laboratory’s selection decision.

· The proposal costs will be evaluated for reasonableness in light of the statement of work requirements and instructions, including completeness/conciseness and clarity of the material presented.

· Pricing will be evaluated by the Laboratory using the estimated quantities provided. However, it should be noted that only actual requirements will be requested and that actual usage may exceed or fall short of the estimate.

· The computed total prices of each offer will be compared to determine the lowest priced proposal received. Rates shall not be specified by individual personnel, nor shall a range of rates for any category be specified.

· The computed total prices will be weighed against the apparent advantages of individual technical proposals to determine if technically superior proposals warrant payment of any additional price.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

Each offeror shall submit a Price Proposal as detailed in Enclosure No. 3 – Contract Pricing Proposal Form.

Travel expenses are not anticipated and will not be compensable under any work order.

IV. Selection and Award

· A proposal may be eliminated from consideration if the proposal is so grossly and obviously deficient as to be totally nonresponsive (e.g. should the proposal not represent the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrate that the offeror does not understand the requirement of the RFP).

· Offerors should be prepared to respond to requests by the Laboratory Procurement Official for oral presentations or written discussion or both and other information as may be necessary to assist in the detailed evaluation process. The Laboratory reserves the right, however, to 1) make a selection without discussion with any of the offerors; 2) reject any and all offers; and 3) waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received. It is, therefore, emphasized that each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms to the Laboratory that the offeror can submit.

· The Laboratory may solicit, from available sources, experience data concerning an offeror’s past performance and may consider such information in its evaluation.

· The Laboratory intends to, but is not obligated to, award a Basic Ordering Agreement resulting from this solicitation to one or more responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) conforms to this RFP and represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in Enclosure No. 4.

· If the Laboratory Procurement Official determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Laboratory Procurement Official may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

image1.png