Enclosure No. 4 - Evaluation Criteria.docx

Enclosure No. 4 Evaluation Criteria May 6, 2026

I. Introduction

This document defines the evaluation criteria that will be applied to the Offeror’s proposal for the ALCF Artemis Compute Cluster acquisition. The criteria address conformance to the Statement of Work (SOW), "Artemis Compute Cluster", dated May 6, 2026 and all other requirements of the RFP.

II. Evaluation Process and Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors

Proposals will be evaluated in three (3) separate parts:

· Part I – Technical Proposal

· Part II – Business/Management Proposal

· Part III – Price Proposal

Argonne intends to award a contract on a best-value basis. Best value is expected to result from selection of the proposal that offers the greatest overall value to the Laboratory, considering technical merit, contractor responsibility, and price.

As an initial step, the Laboratory will evaluate the Business/Management Proposal to conduct a Contractor Responsibility Determination. This review will consist of a general business assessment and will result in a pass/fail determination. The Business/Management Proposal will be evaluated solely for this purpose.

Only those proposals receiving a passing Contractor Responsibility Determination will be eligible for further evaluation. Proposals determined to be responsible will then be evaluated in the following areas:

· Technical Criteria

· Price Criteria

The Technical Proposal is more important than the Price Proposal. Although price may not be the controlling factor in the award decision, it will be a significant consideration in the Laboratory’s source selection process.

III. Technical Criteria

Technical Proposals will be evaluated and assigned one overall adjectival rating of:

· Outstanding – Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of all requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths, few to no weaknesses, and no deficiencies.

· Good – Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has at least one strength, few weaknesses, and no deficiencies.

· Acceptable – Proposal meets the requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. There may be no strengths, or any notable strengths are balanced by weaknesses. Proposal has no deficiencies.

· Marginal – Proposal has demonstrated a less than adequate approach and understanding that does not clearly meet requirements. Weaknesses may be major and outweigh strengths. Proposal is barely awardable and may require extra Laboratory involvement to achieve success.

· Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet requirements, contains one or more deficiencies, and is unawardable.

Failure to meet one or more minimum mandatory requirements set forth in the SOW may result in a rating of “Unacceptable”, rendering the proposal ineligible for award.

Technical Proposals will be evaluated in the following areas, listed in descending order of importance:

1. Overall Technical Requirements

· Including, but not limited to, hardware, software, and licensing.

2. Maintenance and Support

3. Installation Services

The detailed technical criteria are set forth in Appendix 1 – Technical Criteria below.

IV. Business/Management Criteria

The Business/Management Proposal will not receive an adjectival rating. It will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis to determine whether the Offeror is a responsible contractor. In making this determination, the Laboratory may consider factors including, but not limited to, the Offeror’s general business integrity, financial and organizational capability, past performance record, ability to comply with required delivery or performance schedules, and any other information relevant to the Offeror’s responsibility. Preference will be given to Offerors that demonstrate minimal financial risk and a strong ability to successfully perform under the agreement. The Offeror shall provide sufficient information, as detailed in Enclosure No. 1, Part II, to enable the Laboratory to make this determination.

V. Price Criteria

The Price Proposal will not receive an adjectival rating. It will be evaluated to determine the most advantageous probable cost to the Laboratory. In evaluating price, the Laboratory may consider the total evaluated price, price realism, price reasonableness, and any other factors relevant to determining the probable cost of successful performance. Total evaluated price will be considered in relation to the relative merits of the technical proposals to determine whether the advantages of a higher-rated technical proposal warrant payment of any associated price premium. In conducting this evaluation, the Laboratory may consider information obtained from Government and/or commercially available sources.

VI. Proposal Risk

In addition to the evaluations described above, the Laboratory will assess the overall proposal risk associated with each Offeror’s proposed approach. Proposal risk will be considered in conjunction with the Technical and Price evaluations in determining the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Offerors should identify and describe any significant, high-level risks that could adversely affect successful project execution, schedule, cost, system performance, or long-term supportability. Such risks may include, but are not limited to, damaged or non-operational hardware, integration challenges, supply-chain constraints, market volatility affecting component availability, or other factors that could impair successful performance.

Proposal risk will be evaluated using the following ratings:

· Low Risk – Any proposal weaknesses have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. Normal Contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably minimize any difficulties. The Proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of scope and successful contract performance is likely.

· Moderate Risk – Proposal has weaknesses or insufficiences that may potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. However, special Contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring should minimize difficulties, and successful contract performance can likely still be achieved.

· High Risk – Proposal has weaknesses that have the potential to cause serious disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance even with special Contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

VII. Basis for Award

The Laboratory intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is compliant with and responsive to this RFP, demonstrates conformance with the Statement of Work and all other RFP requirements, and offers pricing determined to be fair and reasonable. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to Argonne, as determined in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in this solicitation.

RFP No. 6-B143-P-00148-00

Appendix 1 – Technical Criteria