Enclosure No. 4 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

RFP No. 6-B143-P-00251-00

Enclosure No. 4 Evaluation Criteria

September 18, 2026

I. Introduction This document defines the evaluation criteria that will be applied to the Offeror’s proposal for the ALCF Equinox AI System acquisition. These criteria address conformance to the Statement of Work (SOW), "Equinox AI System", dated September 1, 2026 and all other requirements of the RFP.

Argonne intends to award a contract on a best-value tradeoff basis. Under the best-value tradeoff approach, award 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 such, award may be made to an Offeror other than the one proposing the lowest evaluated price if the Laboratory determines that the technical, operational, business, risk, schedule, support, or other advantages of a higher-rated proposal justify any associated price premium.

The required Base System is the primary procurement requirement under this solicitation. Any proposed Alternative Commercial Structure (ACS) approach will be considered only as provided in this solicitation.

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

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 proposals determined to be responsive to the solicitation and submitted by Offerors receiving a passing Contractor Responsibility Determination will be eligible for full Technical and Price evaluation.

Proposals eligible for further evaluation 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, clearly address, or credibly demonstrate compliance with one or more mandatory requirements of the SOW may result in a rating of “Unacceptable”, rendering the proposal ineligible for award.

Technical Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation areas and criteria set forth in Appendix 1 – Technical Criteria (which appears below), in descending order of importance (importance decreases as the item number increases).

Where an Offeror proposes an alternative commercial structure approach, the Laboratory may evaluate that approach independently, comparatively against the Offeror’s required Base System proposal, comparatively against other Offerors’ proposals, or in any combination thereof, as the Laboratory determines appropriate to the source-selection decision. Any such approach will be evaluated for technical merit, production capability, operational practicality, compliance with applicable mandatory requirements, proposal completeness, business and contractual practicality, and overall performance risk, as applicable to the proposed commercial structure.

Because proposed ACS approaches may differ materially in business model, ownership structure, pricing mechanics, term structure, service-delivery approach, operational responsibility, support model, and end-of-term arrangements, the Laboratory may evaluate such approaches using considerations and comparative methods appropriate to the specific structure proposed, provided that all proposals remain subject to the applicable mandatory requirements of the solicitation.

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. Consideration will be given to the extent of financial risk presented and the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to successfully perform under the agreement as part of the Laboratory’s contractor responsibility determination.

In addition, the Laboratory may consider the nature and extent of any proposed exceptions, deviations, conditional assumptions, or requested modifications to the Laboratory’s proposed agreement terms, statement of work, financing documents, or other solicitation requirements in determining overall responsibility, acceptability, and the practicality of award. Where lease-to-ownership financing, vendor-arranged financing, third-party financing, or another alternative commercial structure is proposed or required, the Laboratory may consider whether the proposed arrangement appears financially viable.

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 total evaluated cost/price and overall price advantage or disadvantage to the Laboratory, as applicable to the proposed acquisition structure. In evaluating price, the Laboratory may consider total evaluated price, price reasonableness, price realism where appropriate, financing costs, lifecycle-related price implications, and any other factors relevant to determining the likely overall cost to the Laboratory 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.

For proposals involving lease-to-ownership financing or other financing-supported purchase structures, the Laboratory may evaluate, as applicable, the fee structure, interest rate assumptions, total financing costs, and other price-related financing factors.

For any proposed alternative commercial structure, the Laboratory may evaluate price and cost in the context of the proposed contractual model, term, ownership structure, operational dependencies, support structure, and end-of-term obligations.

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 shall 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, unsupported delivery schedules, unresolved facilities dependencies, inadequate system expansion strategy, or other factors that could impair successful performance.

The Laboratory’s assessment of proposal risk is independent of, and not limited to, the risks expressly identified by the Offeror.

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 Laboratory 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 insufficiencies that may potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. However, special Contractor emphasis and close Laboratory 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 Laboratory monitoring.

VII. Basis for Award

The required Base System is the primary procurement requirement under this solicitation. Offerors are not required to submit an Alternative Commercial Structure (ACS) approach in order to be eligible for award of the Base System. Submission or evaluation of an ACS approach does not create any entitlement to award of that approach.

The Laboratory intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined, through a best-value tradeoff, to represent the greatest overall value to the Laboratory, considering the results of the technical evaluation, contractor responsibility determination, price evaluation, financing implications where applicable, and overall proposal risk.

No ACS approach will be eligible for award unless the same Offeror has submitted a complete and compliant Base System proposal. In addition, the Laboratory will not select an ACS approach for award unless it determines both that:

1. the associated Offeror’s required Base System proposal represents the best-value underlying Base System procurement among the proposals received; and

2. the proposed ACS approach itself represents the best overall value to the Laboratory under the solicitation.

The Laboratory may select a proposal other than the lowest-priced proposal if it determines that the technical, operational, schedule, support, business, or risk-reduction advantages of that proposal justify any associated price premium. The Laboratory also reserves the right to award the Base System without awarding any ACS approach if it determines that doing so is in the best interest of the Laboratory.

Appendix 1 – Technical Criteria

The following technical evaluation criteria identify the principal areas the Laboratory will use to evaluate the Technical Proposal in relation to the requirements of the SOW. These areas are intended to organize and communicate the Laboratory’s evaluation approach and do not replace, reduce, or waive any mandatory requirement of the SOW. The SOW establishes the binding minimum technical requirements applicable to this procurement, and Offerors remain responsible for demonstrating compliance with all such requirements.

The matters identified below are representative of the principal technical considerations expected to inform the Laboratory’s evaluation;

however, the Laboratory may also consider any other aspect of a proposal that bears on the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement, likelihood of successful performance, operational suitability, conformance with the solicitation, or ability to satisfy the mandatory requirements of the SOW.

1. Overall Technical Solution and System Architecture The Laboratory may consider, among other things:

• the extent to which the proposal provides a minimally compliant Base System deployment and otherwise satisfies the technical requirements of the SOW;

• the overall quality, completeness, and technical merit of the proposed architecture;

• the usefulness and practicality of the proposed AI capability for the Laboratory’s intended mission needs;

• the degree to which the proposed solution is coherent, supportable, and operationally practical under the proposed acquisition and operating model;

• the extent to which the proposal clearly identifies and addresses assumptions, dependencies, exclusions, interfaces, and technical tradeoffs;

• the extent to which the proposal demonstrates understanding of and conformance to the SOW’s required system outcomes and constraints; and

• the extent to which the proposed architecture, support model, and deployment plan remain coherent, supportable, and operationally practical if the Laboratory elects to reduce the number of compute racks acquired prior to award.

2. Delivery and Production Readiness

• the earliest practical delivery and installation schedule;

• the realism and credibility of the proposed manufacturing, integration, delivery, and production-readiness schedule;

• the extent to which the proposal provides a production-capable minimum compliant initial deployment;

• the practicality of the Offeror’s proposed acceptance, testing, and transition-to-production approach; and

• the completeness and realism of assumptions, dependencies, and risks affecting timely deployment.

3. Facilities Efficiency and Data-Center Integration

• compute and AI capability delivered relative to occupied floor space, installed IT electrical load, and heat-rejection requirement;

• the efficiency and justification of required non-compute infrastructure;

• the efficiency of power, cooling, and floor-space utilization;

• the justification for the proposed data-center-floor footprint;

• the clarity, completeness, and feasibility of proposed facilities assumptions, requirements, and interfaces;

• the quality of the proposed floor plan, layout, serviceability approach, and data-center integration approach; and

• the extent to which the proposal minimizes unnecessary variation in electrical service types and power-distribution approaches.

4. High-Speed East-West Network Architecture

• the quality, performance, scalability, and practicality of the proposed high-speed east-west network architecture;

• the adequacy and persuasiveness of the Offeror’s justification for the selected network technology;

• the implications of the proposed network approach for latency, bandwidth, scalability, congestion management, resilience, manageability, and future expansion;

• the practicality of the proposed pod, rack-group, or other deployment organization;

• the impact of the proposed network design on floor space, cable management, power, cooling, and serviceability; and

• the suitability of the proposed network for AI-oriented and scientific workloads, including distributed training and related communication-intensive workflows.

5. North-South Ethernet, Storage, and Laboratory Integration

• the quality and practicality of the proposed Juniper and Apstra Ethernet integration approach;

• the extent to which the proposal supports mounting and use of the Laboratory’s global file system over the north-south

Ethernet network;

• the practicality, completeness, and supportability of the proposed north-south networking approach;

• the quality of the proposed interfaces to Laboratory services, including management, security, storage, monitoring, and external connectivity as applicable; and

• the extent to which the solution appears compatible with the Laboratory’s existing and anticipated operational environment.

6. Software, Resource Management, and Operational Model

• the quality and practicality of the proposed software environment;

• the quality and practicality of the proposed resource-management, allocations, scheduling, workload-sharing, and service-management approach;

• the suitability of the proposal for AI-oriented, interactive, persistent-service, hybrid-workflow, and batch operating models;

• the extent to which the proposed software and operational model can support mixed training, inference, interactive, and persistent-service use cases;

• the maturity, clarity, and operational feasibility of the proposed management and operational approach, including the extent to which the proposed operating model is practical and appropriate to the acquisition structure proposed; and

• the degree to which the proposed software environment avoids unacceptable external operational dependencies.

7. Installation, Implementation, and Demarcation Approach

• the quality, completeness, and practicality of the proposed installation and integration approach;

• the clarity of proposed responsibilities, demarcation points, interfaces, and dependencies;

• the extent to which the proposal supports efficient installation, validation, acceptance, and operational handoff;

• the quality of the proposed responsibility matrix and project implementation approach; and

• the extent to which the proposed approach appears likely to reduce execution risk and avoid unnecessary disruption.

8. Operations, Support, and Lifecycle Management

• the operational maturity of the proposed solution;

• the quality, completeness, and practicality of the proposed maintenance and support model;

• the adequacy of the proposed five-year lifecycle-management approach;

• the extent to which the proposal provides confidence in long-term supportability, serviceability, maintainability, and parts availability;

• the Offeror’s approach to operational continuity during maintenance, failures, expansions, and rolling upgrades; and

• the overall likelihood of successful and sustainable production operations.

9. Security, Management, Telemetry, and Cloud Independence

• the quality and practicality of the proposed security-related capabilities;

• the adequacy of proposed management, telemetry, and monitoring capabilities;

• the extent to which the proposed solution provides appropriate operational visibility and control;

• whether management, telemetry, scheduling, orchestration, or other operational capabilities introduce unacceptable cloud or externally hosted dependencies;

• the extent to which the proposed solution can be operated within the Laboratory environment without operational dependency on externally hosted services;

• the completeness and clarity with which the Offeror provides information required for Laboratory cyber-security review, including, where applicable, the SaaS Questionnaire; and

• the clarity and practicality of the Offeror’s approach to diagnostics, lifecycle updates, and secure operations.

10. Future Expansion, Technology Evolution, and Operational Flexibility

• the extent to which the proposed architecture supports practical future expansion;

• the flexibility of the proposed approach for modular growth, staged deployment, and future technology evolution;

• the extent to which future expansion can occur with minimal disruption to active operations;

• the quality of the Offeror’s strategy for rolling upgrades, future technology evolution, and lifecycle adaptability;

• the extent to which the proposed design avoids unnecessary replacement or redesign of infrastructure during future growth; and

• the practicality of the proposed approach for integration of heterogeneous AI resources, including interaction with other Laboratory AI platforms where applicable.

Alternative Commercial Structure Approaches (if proposed) Any proposed Alternative Commercial Structure (ACS) approach must be sufficiently complete and detailed to permit meaningful independent evaluation and must be production-capable. The Laboratory will evaluate each proposed ACS approach for satisfaction of the applicable mandatory requirements of the Statement of Work, including requirements relating to mission suitability, technical functionality, facilities compatibility, installation, integration, acceptance, operations, support, security, operational transparency, and interoperability. In addition, the Laboratory may evaluate the extent to which the proposed ACS approach is technically complete, operationally practical, contractually workable, financially and commercially transparent, supportable over the contemplated term, and likely to compare favorably in the Laboratory’s best-value tradeoff evaluation in light of the proposed ownership structure, operating model, service-delivery model, operational dependencies, continuity-of-operations approach, transition rights, end-of-term obligations, and associated risks.

If an Offeror proposes an alternative commercial structure or alternative solution approach, the Laboratory may consider, among other things:

• the maximum useful AI capability that can be delivered within the stated 10 MW IT electrical load, 10 MW heat-rejection, and 6,000-square-foot footprint constraints;

• the service-delivery model;

• the plan for continuity of operations;

• the end-of-term practicality;

• the technical completeness and operational practicality of the proposed alternative;

• the clarity and transparency with which the alternative approach is described;

• the extent to which accountability for delivery, operations, support, performance, transition, and security is clearly defined;

• the compatibility of the alternative approach with the Laboratory’s mission, security, operational, contractual, facilities, and support requirements;

• the risks, dependencies, assumptions, and operational limitations associated with the proposed alternative; and

• whether the alternative approach provides advantages sufficient to justify any additional complexity, risk, or cost.