Evaluation Criteria Crystal Optics.doc
DOC document 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 34ID Si (111) Crystal Optics
- Solicitation number
- 4-B138-Q-00519-00
- Issued by
-
Department of Energy Office of Science
About this file
The document provides the evaluation criteria for the Argonne National Laboratory RFP for 34-ID Optical Blanks. The key evaluation criteria include maintaining optical surface coplanarity, tangential slope error, controlling depth of grit size, and surface roughness. Past performance, including similar contracts completed within the last 5 years, will also be evaluated. Proposal risk will be considered based on the offeror's understanding of the scope, ability to successfully perform the contract, and service and support capabilities. The related federal contract opportunity is for the APS division to procure (4) flat polished silicon optics from (2) precisely oriented silicon blanks supplied by Argonne National Laboratory.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFQ Crystal Optics.doc | DOC document | |
| Reps Certs ANL-70B.doc | DOC document | |
| Instructions to Offerors G2-131021.doc | DOC document | |
| Statement of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| Drawing 1001.pdf | ||
| Appendix A-71COM-13-FEB-2023 (002).pdf | ||
| APS Quality Assurance Requirements.pdf | ||
| Drawing 1002.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Lemont, IL 60439
EVALUATION CRITERIA
6/3/2024 The technical evaluation team will review the packages submitted by the offerors. The Specification provided to the offerors will form the basis for the evaluation. Listed below are the various criteria for the evaluation of the bid packages.
This document contains evaluation criteria that are intended to assist in judging the adequacy of responses to the RFP for the 34-ID Optical Blanks. Sections 1-3 in the Technical Specification indicate the minimum requirements in order to meet the evaluation criteria listed below.
1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
For proposal evaluation against Technical Specifications, the Offeror shall provide as part of their response a description of the final outcome optical blanks and any associated final features relevant to obtaining the specifications. Evaluation criteria are listed in order of importance:
| No. |
| Criterion |
| 1. |
| Maintain polished optical surface plane coplanarity to original ground-oriented surface to within +/-0.01 degrees |
| 2. |
| Tangential Slope Error: 0.20μr RMS on CA with >10km radius removed at 2mm spatial resolution with optical metrology. Measured with surface under test placed perpendicular to ground to eliminate gravity sag |
| 3. |
| Control depth of each grit size used in the process to minimize subsurface damage. |
| 4. |
| Roughness: Shall be 1Å RMS or below, as measured at three evenly distributed points along the tangential centerline on CA, with 1micrometer or below spatial resolution optical metrology |
ALL EVALUATION FACTORS, OTHER THAN COST OR PRICE, WHEN COMBINED, ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN COST OR PRICE.
PAST PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Offerors shall be evaluated on their past performance in providing similar equipment and services to those solicited in this RFP, and shall provide documentation needed by the representative of Argonne National Laboratory to adequately evaluate the Offeror’s capability to provide the specified system. Argonne National Laboratory reserves the right to send representatives to visit prospective supplier sites to gather additional pre-bid qualification information. Offerors are encouraged to supply a brief description of their available manufacturing, test, research and development, and maintenance facilities.
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 the following information:
1. A list of three (3) contracts in the past five years that have been awarded to the Offeror of approximately the same dollar magnitude as Offeror’s proposal, that have been completed and are as similar as possible in nature to the requirements covered by the technical specifications.
2. The list should provide the following information for each contract:
a. Contract Title
b. Contract Number
c. Date of Award
d. Client’s Name and Address
e. Contract Amount
f. Name of Client’s Contract(s) regarding performance evaluation
g. Telephone/Fax/E-mail numbers for Client Contract(s)
h. A copy of the Offeror’s latest audited financial statement.
i. Any sharable performance data.
2 PROPOSAL RISK
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; ability and commitment to service and support the system and its operation over the system’s lifetime after successful execution of the award; details of service contracts, numbers, and proximity of service personnel; service response time; service contract cost; etc.
-Page 1 of 2-
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .