Enclosure No. 4_Evaluation Criteria.docx

ANL-830 March 10, 2025 Enclosure No. 4 Evaluation Criteria RFP No. 6-JV79-P-00119-00 (01/29/2026) 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, all of equal importance, to evaluate the merit of the Desired Requirements:

CRITERION 1 – Technical Approach Basis of Evaluation:

The extent and quality of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach to performing the work described in Appendix “B,” Statement of Work, including how well the approach demonstrates an understanding of Argonne’s site-wide laundry requirements, operational complexity, quality expectations, and customer service needs.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

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

a) Uniforms and Lab Coats:

i. Assortment of rental garments styles, materials, and colors

ii. Process for direct purchases and whether an online ordering platform would be provided

iii. Assortment of lab coat styles and material for direct purchase

iv. Methods to ensure cleanliness, appearance, and condition of uniforms delivered

b) Quality control:

i. Garment inspection process

ii. Repair and replacement practices

iii. Continuous improvement or upgrade processes

c) Onsite Storage and Receptacles:

i. Locker systems, storage solutions, and maintenance approach

d) Inventory Control System:

i. Accountability for every garment

ii. Process for identifying, validating, and reconciling missing garments

iii. Procedures for promptly updating inventory following employee terminations

e) Health and Safety:

i. Ability to adhere to and adapt processes in accordance with CDC or other public health guidance during a pandemic or similar event

f) Customer Service and Issue Resolution:

i. Processes for receiving, tracking, and resolving customer complaints efficiently and effectively CRITERION 2 – Experience Performing Similar Work Basis of Evaluation:

The relevance, scope, and quality of the Offeror’s organizational experience performing work similar in size, complexity, and operational environment to that described in Appendix “B,” including demonstrated past performance.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

a) Description of the facility where garments are processed

b) Description of environmental sustainable practices at the processing facility

c) In addition to any other information that the Offeror shall provide to allow for evaluation of past performance, furnish the following information:

References from at least three (3) clients for whom your firm has provided services within the previous two (2) 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 evaluate the Offeror’s capability.

CRITERION 3 – Qualifications of Personnel Basis of Evaluation:

The relevance and depth of experience, qualifications, and certifications of proposed personnel assigned to support performance of the work in Appendix “B,” with emphasis on personnel responsible for day-to-day account management.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

a) Description of the firm’s ability to provide a qualified, dedicated local account manager

b) Resumes for proposed account manager and any other project personnel

c) Summary of relevant experience, roles, and any applicable professional certifications

CRITERION 4 – Invoicing and Reporting Basis of Evaluation:

The clarity, organization, and effectiveness of the Offeror’s invoicing and reporting processes, including the ability to meet Argonne’s financial, reporting, and data-segregation requirements.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

a) Detailed description of the billing process, including software systems used

b) Ability to issue invoices in accordance with Argonne specifications, including segregation by project codes, employee name, and delivery locations

c) Sample reports provided to other customers

d) Description of the ability to customize reports to meet Argonne’s requirements (For informational purposes, Argonne’s financial system is Workday.)

CRITERION 5 – Transition Plan Basis of Evaluation:

The effectiveness and feasibility of the Offeror’s transition plan for assuming contract performance while ensuring continuity of services and minimal disruption to Argonne operations.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

Describe the proposed transition approach, including:

a) Coordination with incumbent or Argonne-designated personnel

b) Timeline for implementation

c) Setup of key processes such as employee fittings, pickup and delivery routes, schedules, inventory tracking, and billing systems

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:

Pricing shall be provided in accordance with the format provided in Enclosure 3, Price Proposal Form, as an Excel spreadsheet containing price schedules one through six to complete. Note: Only the items listed in the Pricing Proposal Form shall be considered/evaluated.

Travel costs are not anticipated and will not be compensable under any resultant contract.

image1.png