Enclosure No. 4 - Evaluation Criteria for Site Access Management.pdf

RFP No. 5-P124-P-00107-00

Enclosure No. 4

Evaluation Criteria

March 10, 2025

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

I. Introduction

This document describes the Evaluation Criteria for the provider’s Technical Proposal as it relates to the Statement of Work (SOW) for Site Access Management Solution, dated March 10, 2025.

Argonne will award the contract based on the principles of Best Value. Best Value is expected to result from selecting the highest rated Technical Proposal with the lowest proposed cost.

II. Overall Relative Importance of Proposal Parts

The Technical Proposal is of equal importance than the Cost/Price and Business/Management

Proposal. While the Cost/Price and Business/Management 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 selection for award based on the principles of best value. Best value is expected to result from selection of the highest technically 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 receive an adjective rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable in accordance with the technical criteria described below.

The Cost/Price and Business/Management Proposal will not be adjectively rated. The Cost/Price

Proposal will be judged on realistic costs and the evaluated cost to the Laboratory, all factors considered. The Laboratory may include in the evaluation information acquired from

Government and/or commercially available sources.

III. Evaluation Criteria

A. Preliminary Evaluation

The Contractor Responsibility Determination criteria will be reviewed by the

Laboratory to conduct a general business review of the offeror’s proposal and make a determination based on a pass/fail decision.

B. Final Evaluation

If proposal passes the Contractor Responsibility Determination (to be submitted within the Business/Management Proposal), it will be further evaluated in two (2) areas: 1) Technical Criteria and 2) Cost/Price Criteria, as outlined below.

IV. Proposal Parts

The proposal shall be submitted in three (3) parts: Part I – Technical Proposal, Part II –

Business/Management Proposal, and Part III – Price Proposal. Each of the parts shall be separate and complete in itself such that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of and concurrently with evaluation of the other.

Part I shall consist of the Technical Criteria. Part II shall consist of the Business/Management or

“Contractor Responsibility Determination” criteria. Part III shall consist of the Price Criteria.

V. Technical Criteria

The technical proposal shall contain responses for all of the requirements referenced within the

Statement of Work (SOW). This should be written in the form of an integrated narrative and/or include a point-by-point response to the requirements and options contained in the RFP. The responses should provide the technical details of how the Offeror will meet the proposed requirements and not provide simple "Offer complies" with no details unless appropriate to the requirement. Items that will be evaluated and therefore require a response include the following, listed in order of importance:

1. Technical Requirements. Provide a narrative as to how you are able to meet or exceed the requirements of the Statement of Work, as detailed in Section 4

“Requirements” of the Statement of Work. Your proposal should be organized in the order in which the sections (and sub-sections) are outlined in the Statement of

Work. All requirements features must be described in detail sufficient to allow evaluation and should include any documentation or diagrams that support the requirements.

2. Software implementation plan, training plan, and period of performance timeline.

3. Functionality and ease of use of solution.

4. Ability and commitment to service and support of the software and its operation over the term of the contract.

VI. Cost /Price Criteria

The Offeror is expected to complete Enclosure No. 3 – Pricing Proposal Form of the Request for

Proposal. Offerors are required to propose firm fixed pricing for the base period and both option periods. The Cost Proposal will be evaluated on the most advantageous probable cost to the

Laboratory. The base period should include the price for software, set-up, implementation and training.

VII. Evaluation of Options

Except when it is determined not to be in the Laboratory’s best interests, the Laboratory will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total cost for all options to the total cost for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Laboratory to exercise the option(s).

VIII. Business/Management Criteria

a. Exceptions and Deviations.

Offeror shall provide comments describing whether or not they accept proposed agreement, its schedule articles, statement of work and general/specific terms and conditions. The exceptions, deviations, or conditional assumptions taken must contain sufficient amplification and justification to permit evaluation(s). Such exceptions, deviations or conditional assumptions will not of themselves automatically cause a proposal to be deemed unacceptable to the Laboratory.

However, a large number of exceptions or one or more significant exceptions not providing benefit to the Laboratory may result in rejection of your proposal(s) as unacceptable.

b. Financial Condition and Capability.

The offeror's financial condition and adequacy of working capital will be evaluated to determine if adequate resources are available and committed to allow for successful performance. Contractor shall provide their most recently completed quarterly or yearly financial statements, inclusive of notes to the consolidated financial statements, in addition to any other supporting documentation that demonstrates the financial health or viability of offeror’s organization. Financial statements should contain prior period(s) information.

Audited Financial Statements are preferred, but not required. Unaudited financial statements may result in additional inquiry and/or required supporting evidence.

Preference will be given to offerors that demonstrate minimal financial risk in ability to successfully execute the agreement.

c. Acceptance Period of Proposal.

Provide a statement that the proposal will remain valid for acceptance for a minimum period of one hundred twenty (120) days after the closing date set for receipt of proposals.

d. Authorized Representatives.

Offeror shall provide the names, titles, email address, and telephone numbers of the person(s) authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Offeror with the Laboratory.

e. Pre-Award Information.

Include a fully completed and signed "Pre-Award Information" questionnaire.

This will supplement the online Representations and Certifications at www.sam.gov. All contractors must have a DUNS# and be registered at the

System for Award Management website. A copy of the booklet is included as

Enclosure No. 4 to this RFP.

f. SaaS Questionnaire.

Provide comments to this questionnaire as Argonne seeks a Software as a Service http://www.sam.gov/

(SaaS) solution due to the desire for product innovation, expedient implementation, predictable operating costs, low administrative and internal IT overhead, and enhanced customer support.

IX. 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 references from at least three clients for whom your firm has provided comparable services within the previous two years.

Include for each reference point of contact, company name, and contact information for the point of contact. References may be commercial, or government customers provided the work performed was comparable in scope.

X. Basis for Award

The Laboratory intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible

Offeror whose proposal conforms to this RFP and represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation.