RFP - AM202505-13.pdf

(Rev. 01/31/25)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) No.: AM202505-13

PROPOSAL DUE DATE: 09/02/2025

Beamline M1 Mirrors

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: 334510 Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing and the corresponding size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.

Procurement Point of Contact: Anita Mathias Telephone No: (510) 486-4957 Email: AMathias@lbl.gov

University of California, Managing and Operating Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Request for Proposal No. LBL-AM202505-13

1. INTRODUCTION

The University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (“University” or “LBNL”) requests a proposal for Beamline M1 Mirrors, in accordance with this RFP, Sample Subcontract, and other enclosures.

This solicitation is governed by procurement policies and procedures established under the University’s Prime Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 with the U.S. Government, represented by the Department of Energy, for management and operation of LBNL. Proposals submitted will be treated as offers and any resulting award(s) will be a Subcontract under the University’s Prime Contract.

Timeline of Events Request for Proposal Release July 11, 2025 Offeror Questions Due July 16, 2025 Proposals Due September 2, 2025 no later than 3pm Pacific Time

Table 1

1.1 Summary of Scope

ALS-U is an upgrade project to the LBNL Advanced Light Source. The ALS is a 1.9 GeV storage ring operating at 500 mA of beam current. It is optimized to produce intense beams of soft x-rays, which offer spectroscopic contrast, nanometer-scale resolution, and broad temporal sensitivity. The ALS facility includes an accelerator complex and photon delivery system that is capable of providing the foundations for an upgrade that will achieve world-leading soft x-ray coherent flux. The existing ALS provides a ready-made foundation, including conventional facilities and also includes extensive beamlines (up to 40 simultaneously operating beamlines) and instrumentation, an experimental hall, computing resources, ancillary laboratories, offices, and related infrastructure that will be heavily utilized in an upgrade scenario.

The ALS will be upgraded with an MBA lattice design that will provide a soft x-ray source that is orders of magnitudes brighter — an up to 100-1000 times increase in brightness — and will provide a significantly higher fraction of coherent light in the soft x-ray region than is currently available at ALS.

1.2 Abbreviations and Acronyms

ALS Advanced Light Source ALS-U Advanced Light Source Upgrade ACL Acceptance Criteria List CAD Computer-Aided Design DEF Definition DOE US Department of Energy FAT Factory Acceptance Test FATP Factory Acceptance Test Plan FATR Factory Acceptance Test Report ID Identification LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory N/A Not Applicable NCR Non-Conformance Report NUM Number

NTP Notice to Proceed OSAT Onsite Acceptance Test RFP Request for Proposal SI International System of Units SOW SOW – Statement of Work # AL-1782-0333B UHV Ultra-High Vacuum

1.2 NAICS Code and Small Business Size Standard

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this acquisition is 334510, Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing. The corresponding small business size standard for this acquisition is 1,000 or fewer employees.

The offeror shall complete the Small Business Program Representations clause in the attached Representations and Certifications form based on this small business size standard. Refer to Subpart 19.1

- Size Standards, of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for information on calculating the number of employees.

Under 15 U.S.C. 645(d), any person who misrepresents a firm's status as a business concern that is small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, service-disabled veteran-owned small, economically disadvantaged women-owned small, or women-owned small eligible under the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program in order to obtain a contract to be awarded under the preference programs established pursuant to section 8, 9, 15, 31, and 36 of the Small Business Act or any other provision of Federal law that specifically references section 8(d) for a definition of program eligibility, shall-

(i) Be punished by imposition of fine, imprisonment, or both;

(ii) Be subject to administrative remedies, including suspension and debarment; and

(iii) Be ineligible for participation in programs conducted under the authority of the Act.

2. SOLICITATION RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION FOR AWARD

2.1 General

The offeror must submit documentation illustrating their approach for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Failure to submit any of the information required by this solicitation may be cause for unfavorable consideration or exclusion from further consideration. Proposals must be written in English and be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation.

Written proposals must be submitted by email (or other form of secure electronic submission) to the University Procurement Representative (AMathias@lbl.gov) no later than 3:00 pm Pacific Time on September 2, 2025.

All correspondence in conjunction with this solicitation must be directed to the University Procurement Representative. Proposals shall be valid for a period of 90 days from the proposal due date. Acceptance of late proposals will be at the University’s discretion. The University reserves the right to reject any proposal, to waive any minor proposal irregularities, or to cancel this RFP at any time prior to award without cost to the University. The University will not reimburse any firm for proposal preparation or any other costs related to the participation in this RFP.

2.2 Offerors’ Questions

The University will respond to questions submitted via email to the University Procurement Representative on or before 3:00 pm Pacific Time on July 2, 2025. Questions submitted after this date may not be answered prior to the proposal due date. Answers to questions that are submitted timely will be issued or be made available to all offerors electronically, ensuring that the identity of all offerors will remain anonymous.

2.3 Evaluation and Selection

2.3.1 Determination of Responsive and Responsible Offers

The University intends to select for award the responsive and responsible offeror(s) whose proposal demonstrates that the offeror(s) contain(s) the combination of price, performance features, and supplier attributes (described later in this RFP) offering the best overall value to the University.

An initial review of offers will be performed by the Procurement Specialist to determine if the offer is complete and provides all the required information to enable the University to evaluate the offer to determine if it is responsive.

Offerors may be contacted only for clarification purposes during the initial review. Incomplete offers may be considered non-responsive and may be excluded from further consideration if the omissions are substantive (e.g., one or more required documents not submitted, one or more evaluation factors not addressed). Offerors will be notified when appropriate in the interest of fair business practice and professional courtesy if their offer was determined non-responsive and/or not meeting minimum requirements and the reasons for rejection will be provided if a debrief is requested.

A responsive offeror is one whose proposal satisfies the requirements of this RFP including those listed in Section 2.4, and the requirements of the Sample Subcontract and its incorporated documents. A responsible offeror is one that has adequate financial resources, ability to comply with the performance schedule, has a satisfactory performance record, has the necessary technical skills to be considered capable of performing and is otherwise eligible and qualified to perform the proposed Subcontract at the time of award. An offeror cannot be determined as “responsible” if it is currently ineligible for receiving new federal government prime contracts or subcontracts. The determination of responsiveness and responsibility of complete offers will be made by a team consisting of technical and procurement personnel and considering the evaluation factors described in Section 2.4, below.

2.3.2 Evaluation, Desired Performance Features, Supplier Attributes and Non-Technical

Factors Once the University has determined offers are complete in the initial review, the University will go on to determine the best overall value by evaluating the desired performance features, supplier attributes, and non-technical factors including the price. The University Procurement Representative will make a determination for award to the successful offeror based on the results of the evaluation.

The University’s expectations for these evaluation factors are stated in Section 2.4.2.1 and 2.4.3.2. The University reserves the right to award to other than the lowest price offeror(s). Offerors should therefore strive to be persuasive in describing the value of their proposed performance features, supplier attributes, and other factors, including how they would enhance the likelihood of successful performance and achievement of the University’s objectives. Price will be evaluated based on the total proposed price, including freight and (if applicable) import duties and tariffs.

2.3.3 Additional Evaluation Considerations

The University’s evaluation will be based on the information provided by the offeror(s), the University’s own experience with the offeror(s), and/or information obtained from the offeror’s references and other sources. In its evaluation, the University will consider the degree of substantiation of the proposed approaches in the proposal volumes and in response to any discussions, if held. The University is not responsible for locating or securing any information which is not included in the proposal. To ensure sufficient information is available, offerors must furnish as part of their proposal all descriptive material (such as manuals, drawings, technical specifications, or other information) necessary for the University’s evaluation.

Offerors are advised that, although negotiations may follow receipt of proposals, award may be made without discussions on proposals received. If the University determines that revised proposals are necessary, the University may solicit them from only those offerors deemed to have a reasonable chance to be selected for award. An offeror is identified as having a reasonable chance of award based on the evaluation indicating they are responsive and responsible; their offer satisfies the minimum requirements of the solicitation; they have presented acceptable or strong performance features and supplier attributes;

they have sufficient bandwidth to take on new work; and their proposed pricing is considered fair and reasonable. The University reserves the right to make no awards, a single award, or multiple awards as a result of this solicitation, if it is in the best interest of the University.

2.4 Proposal Submittal Requirements

Proposals should consist of a cover letter, a technical volume, and a business volume. Offerors should submit these as separate documents.

The offeror may submit an alternate proposal to address the objectives of the Statement of Work and/or Specifications, if considered more advantageous to the University than the requested proposal. An explanation of the perceived benefits to the University should be included. If accepted, alternative proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors as described in Section 2.4.2 below.

Proposals must include information on the following evaluation factors. Please note that a description of the information required of each factor is provided after the table below.

Volume Factor

Cover Letter Per Section 2.4.1

Technical Volume

Desired Features and Attributes

Factor 1 – Compliance with Technical Specification

Factor 2 – Engineering and Manufacturing Capability

Factor 3 – Lead Time/Delivery Date

Factor 4 – Past performance fabricating plane substrates for X-ray beamlines

Volume Factor

Factor 5 – Quality Assurance

Business Volume

Non-Technical Evaluation Factors

Enclosures

Offeror’s Acceptance of the terms, conditions, general provisions, and other incorporated documents of the Sample Subcontract

Price Proposal Table 2

2.4.1 Cover Letter

The cover letter must identify the offeror’s name and address, solicitation number and title, the name(s), title(s), email address(es), and telephone number(s) of the individuals in offeror’s organization who have commitment authority on behalf of the offeror and will be responsible for contractual negotiations and administration of any resultant Subcontract.

2.4.2 Technical Volume

The technical volume should contain a comprehensive discussion of how the offeror will fulfill the technical requirements and successfully perform the Subcontract, including a discussion of important performance features and supplier attributes, highlighting any aspects which may separate it from its competitors.

2.4.2.1 Desired Performance Features and Supplier Attributes

The technical volume should identify, describe, and discuss the following performance features and supplier attributes the University has identified as desirable for the successful performance of the proposed Subcontract. The University will use these criteria for the subjective evaluation of proposals. The criteria are listed in the relative order of importance to the University. The offeror should discuss them in the proposal and may identify other performance features and supplier attributes not listed below that the offeror believes may be of value to the University. If the University agrees, they will be considered in the evaluation process. In all cases, the University will assess the value of each proposal as submitted.

The following adjectival ratings will be used to rate the performance features and supplier attributes:

● Excellent: Proposal demonstrates excellent understanding and satisfaction of the University’s requirements. Its approach significantly exceeds the desired performance features and supplier attributes and is highly beneficial to the University. There are no evaluated weaknesses.

● Good: Proposal demonstrates good understanding and satisfaction of the University’s requirements.

Its approach exceeds the desired performance features and supplier attributes and is beneficial to the University. There are no significant evaluated weaknesses.

● Acceptable: Proposal demonstrates an adequate understanding and satisfaction of the University’s requirements. Its approach satisfies most desired performance features and supplier attributes and is beneficial to the University. There may be minor, but correctable evaluated weaknesses.

● Unacceptable: Proposal fails to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the University’s requirements or its approach fails to meet desired performance features or supplier attributes that are beneficial to the University. There are unacceptable weaknesses that can only be met with major changes to the proposed approach.

Factor 1 – Compliance with Technical Specification This procurement may be awarded as two separate packages, each evaluated independently based on the technical requirements outlined in the associated documentation.

Package 1 – M1 Mirrors per Document #AL-1778-6137B (Sections 5.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.2) The offeror shall propose M1 beamline mirrors that meet or exceed the technical specifications outlined in Document #AL-1778-6137B, specifically Sections 5.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.2, and the applicable sections of the Scope of Work document #AL-1782-0333B.

Proposals must include a detailed description of the offeror’s capabilities to:

a) Fulfill the scope of work related to these M1 mirrors, including:

• Project management

• Design for fabrication

• Fabrication

• Shipping

• Quality assurance

b) Meet the technical and performance requirements for these M1 mirrors, including support for performance validation activities. LBNL will conduct acceptance testing to verify optical performance.

Offerors should describe their approach to fabrication, verification, and support for testing, and provide documentation that demonstrates their ability to meet or exceed the required specifications.

Package 2 – M1 Mirrors per Document #AL-1777-2365A (Sections 6.3.2 and 11.3.2) The offeror shall propose M1 beamline mirrors that meet or exceed the specifications outlined in Document #AL-1777-2365A, specifically Sections 6.3.2 and 11.3.2, and the applicable sections of the Scope of Work document #AL-1782-0333B.

Proposals must include a detailed description of the offeror’s capabilities to:

a) Fulfill the scope of work related to these M1 mirrors, including:

• Project management

• Design for fabrication

• Fabrication

• Shipping

• Quality assurance

b) Meet the technical and performance requirements for these M1 mirrors, including support for performance validation activities. LBNL will conduct acceptance testing to verify optical performance.

Offerors should describe their approach to fabrication, verification, and support for testing, and provide documentation that demonstrates their ability to meet or exceed the required specifications.

Evaluation Note:

Each package—Package 1 (Document #AL-1778-6137B) and Package 2 (Document #AL-1777- 2365A)—will be evaluated separately and may be awarded independently, based on the offeror’s demonstrated technical compliance and capability specific to the respective requirements.

Offerors are not required to submit a proposal for both Mirror Packages. Offerors may submit a proposal for Package 1, or Package 2, or both.

The offeror must include in its proposal appropriate documentation demonstrating how the proposed beamline mirrors will meet or exceed the requirements of the technical specification. The offeror should include in the proposal a statement that the offeror takes no exceptions to the technical specification.

However, if necessary, the offeror may include in its proposal a request for consideration of exceptions to the technical specification, including a rationale for each exception and explanation of how the proposed beamline mirror will otherwise meet the requirement(s).

Factor 2 – Engineering and Manufacturing Capability The offeror must have appropriate Engineering and Manufacturing Capabilities to manufacture the beamline mirrors.

The proposal should include a description of the organization’s engineering and project management experience, including résumés if appropriate.

The offeror should identify lower-tier subcontractor(s) who are expected to perform work or labor or render service at the worksite, or who will fabricate any component of the beamline mirrors. The proposal should identify the portion of the work which will be done by each proposed lower‑tier subcontractor.

Only one lower‑tier subcontractor may be listed for the same portion of the work. The offeror should only propose lower‑tier subcontractor(s) who are equipped, experienced, and licensed to do the work in the particular field for which they have been proposed.

Factor 3 – Lead Time/Delivery Date The offeror must propose an acceptable lead time for delivery of the beamline mirrors after the Subcontract is awarded. Delivery within 12 months after receipt of order, is highly desired.

The proposal should identify a proposed lead time for delivery of the beamline mirrors, which may be subject to negotiation prior to award. The offeror may propose a delivery schedule that differs from that given in the SOW, which would be evaluated to determine if it would result in a better overall value to the University. Acceptance of an alternate schedule will be at the sole discretion of the University. The proposal should include information supporting the offeror’s ability to meet the proposed delivery date including:

• A detailed delivery schedule

• Details of project management experience to support on-time deliveries

Factor 4 – Past Performance The offeror should have successfully performed within the last three years one or more contract(s) for production of beamline mirror(s) similar in type and complexity to that which is proposed.

The offeror should include in its proposal a written description of up to three successfully performed contracts within the last three years that demonstrates that the offeror has experience performing similar work in a quality manner (e.g., letters of reference, project documentation, etc.). Successful projects for the federal government, particularly the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), a National Laboratory such as LBNL, the State of California, or the University of California, is of particular interest for this work effort. Included in the description of these contracts should be the client/customer technical and business contact information (name, title, telephone number, and/or email address). The offeror should also provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and any corrective action(s) taken

Factor 5 – Quality Assurance The offeror should have a Quality Management System (QMS) or Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) Program conforming to and meeting the basic tenets of the Quality Assurance Requirements Article of the Sample Subcontract and in the incorporated LBNL Quality Assurance Requirements for Capital Projects.

The offeror should submit with its proposal a copy of its QMS or QA Program Manual that describes and demonstrates how QA/QC is incorporated into its policies, processes and work activities at the corporate level, and how the Program requirements are flowed-down to lower tier subcontractors and suppliers at the project level. The QMS or QA Program may be a standalone document or QA Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that collectively describe the QMS or QA Program. The basis for the offeror’s QMS or QA Program should be American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA-1), International Standards Organization (ISO) 9001 or other QMS/QA industry standard. The offeror should discuss and describe how they as a Company manage and incorporate quality assurance into their processes (Corporate Quality Culture) and how the offeror will develop a project-level document that manages the QA/QC throughout the life cycle of this project.

The offeror should submit with its proposal a sample of a project-level document that demonstrates how its QA/QC Program requirements were flowed down to lower tier subcontractors and suppliers on a relevant project.

The offeror should submit with its proposal official substantiation of current applicable third-party national or international accreditation(s) of their QMS or QA Program for the requested services (e.g., ISO, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP), DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP), Accredited Quality Contractor (AQC), National Environmental Balancing Bureau (NEBB) Firm Accreditation, Testing, Adjusting and Balancing Bureau (TABB) Certified Commissioning Contractor (CCC).

2.4.3 Business Volume

2.4.3.1 Enclosures

The offeror must complete the Representations & Certifications enclosure and submit it with the business volume. Failure to submit this document could result in a determination of non-responsiveness.

The following enclosures are provided for informational purposes and do not need to be returned with the proposal:

• Technical Specification Document AL-1777-2365A of the ALS-U M1 Mirrors for BL632 and BL1132

• Technical Specification Document AL-1778-6137B of the ALS-U M1 Mirrors for BL5321 and

BL5322

• Statement of Work AL-1782-0333B: Manufacturing of the M1 Mirrors for ALS-U BL 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.2,

6.3.2 & 11.3.2

• Drawing: 30A178A BL 11.3.2 M1 Mirror

• Drawing: 30A180A BL 6.3.2 M1 Mirror

• Drawing: AL-1788-5220A BL5.3.2.1 M1 Mirror

• Drawing: AL-1789-9198A BL5.3.2.2 M1 Mirror

• Acceptance Criteria List: AL-1800-6442A ACL for the New 6.3.2 and 11.3.2 M1 Mirrors

• Acceptance Criteria List: AL-1801-5702 ACL for the New 5.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.2 M1 Mirrors

• Sample Subcontract

• General Provisions for Commercial Supplies and Services dated 1/31/25

• General Provisions for Commercial Supplies and Services (Foreign) dated 1/31/25

• Insurance Certificate Instructions dated 5/28/21

Notice: The design/documentation package and all associated documents, drawings, and records are owned by DOE. Documents may be obtained from LBNL via link below with Google Drive access. Use of the documents for any purpose outside of (1) responding to this solicitation or (2) a LBNL [fabrication or other as applicable] subcontract is strictly prohibited. No document may be distributed to others or otherwise reproduced or used without written permission from the LBNL University Procurement Representative.

2.4.3.2 Non-Technical Factors

The following non-technical factors will also be evaluated as a part of the negotiation and award process.

2.4.3.2.1 Offeror’s Acceptance of the terms, conditions, general provisions, and other incorporated documents of the Sample Subcontract

The offeror should accept the terms, conditions, general provisions, and other incorporated documents of the Sample Subcontract, including the requirement to include clauses in its lower-tier subcontracts at any tier, to the extent applicable. The terms and conditions of the Sample Subcontract have been approved by the DOE, and it is not the University’s intent to make material changes. While an offeror may identify “exceptions” to the Sample Subcontract, such exceptions may reflect unfavorably upon the offeror’s proposal. Exceptions make it difficult to compare competing offers, and the process of resolving exceptions may be time-consuming and result in unacceptable delays in the award of a Subcontract.

The offeror should include in its proposal a statement that the offeror takes no exceptions to the terms, conditions, general provisions, or the incorporated documents of the Sample Subcontract. The offeror should include in its request for consideration of exceptions a redlined version of the Sample Subcontract with all proposed revisions indicated by tracked changes, or a separate sheet with all proposed revisions indicated by tracked changes, referencing the article or clause to which the proposed revision applies. The offeror must also include in its request for consideration of any exception, a business case for that exception, providing a justification for the requested change and an analysis of any increased risk to the University.

The University will attempt to resolve exceptions in a timely manner through an iterative process and with review, concurrence, and/or approval of both the University and DOE. However, offerors are advised that when exceptions cannot be resolved and agreement cannot be reached on terms and conditions, award will not be made to otherwise successful offerors.

2.4.3.2. Price Proposal

Price, while being an important factor, is not in and of itself the determining factor in the selection of the successful offeror for award of the Subcontract contemplated by this solicitation. Price is not weighted;

rather, each offeror’s price will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and completeness.

The offeror must propose a total fixed price in US dollars. Shipping charges should not be listed separately;

they should be included in the total fixed price, based on Incoterms 2020 DAP (Delivered at Place) and the shipping requirements identified in the Sample Subcontract. If the shipment will pass through US customs, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule code must be included in the price proposal.

A milestone payment schedule may be proposed. No advance deposits or down payments are allowable, and subcontract signature is not an acceptable milestone. All milestones must be based on performance measured by objective, quantifiable methods; accomplishment of defined events; or other quantifiable measures of results, and should generally be representative of the costs that a subcontractor would likely have to incur to achieve each milestone up to that point in time, which can be demonstrated to the University’s satisfaction.

3. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

3.1 Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Proposal Data

The University will safeguard any commercial or financial data or information contained in proposals when marked in accordance with paragraph (e) of Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.215-1. Such data or information includes (i) trade secrets or (ii) commercial or financial information that is privileged or considered business confidential, either of which is developed at private expense.

The University will endeavor to properly maintain such data and information to the same degree as its own data and information and not disclose such data or information to individuals other than those working for the University or the Government on this procurement. These individuals will be bound by an obligation of confidentiality to use such data or information solely for the purpose of evaluation of the proposal. Proposals received will be retained and disposed of in accordance with requirements in the University’s Prime Contract with DOE.

If the offeror intends to use a product or process for which there is a patent position, the proposal should so indicate and list patent applications and/or patents granted (including dates, numbers, and descriptions), and whether the Government has rights related to the patents.

3.2 Export Control Classification Information

Before Subcontract award, the offeror will provide export control classification information for all items as required by the Representations and Certifications. Items may not be accepted without the export control information required by this Request for Proposal.

If any of the ordered items (including data, software, or services) are export controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Sections 120-130, aka "ITAR"); the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Sections 730-774, aka "EAR"); the Nuclear Related Regulations (10 CFR 110 and 10 CFR 810); the Foreign Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR section 500-599, aka "OFAC"); or if sourced internationally, i.e., controlled under a country's equivalent dual use or military strategic goods list, then the Subcontractor agrees to provide the Procurement Representative with written notification of this export controlled status prior to shipment or transfer to the University. The notification must specifically identify the export-controlled item(s) and its export classification. The University reserves the right to cancel or modify any part of the Subcontract that includes export-controlled items, data, software, or services prior to accepting delivery. Subcontractor shall indemnify the University and the Government for all export enforcement mitigation cost, fines, or penalties incurred by the University, specifically arising from Subcontractor's failure to comply with this notification provision and the University's reliance on the Subcontractor's representation as provided.

3.3 Buy American Act Requirements - Supplies

The General Provisions of the Sample Subcontract include FAR Clause 52.225-1, Buy American Act - Supplies, which requires that only domestic end products be delivered (i.e., products manufactured in the United States or unmanufactured products mined or produced in the United States), unless a specific exception applies. The offeror is to indicate in the Representations & Certifications form, to be submitted with the proposal, whether it proposes to furnish any foreign end products.

The University may apply an exception to the Buy American Act for a proposed foreign end product if:

1. Its price, including any customs duty, is more than 20% less than the price for a comparable domestic end product available from a large business concern, or more than 30% less than the price for a comparable domestic end product available from a small business concern; or

2. A domestic end product satisfying the University’s requirements is not reasonably available.

If the offeror proposes to furnish any foreign end product, the proposal should also include information and data supporting its use as an exception to the Buy American Act. Refer to FAR Clause 52.225-1 for the definition of end product, domestic end product, and foreign end product.

3.4 Sustainability-Related Requirements

LBNL’s Sustainable Acquisition Program (SAP) is subject to several interacting initiatives and Federal, DOE, State, and University requirements related to sustainability, including Recycled Content Products (EPA Designated Products), Biobased (BioPreferred®), energy efficient products (EnergyStar®), environmentally preferable and energy efficient electronics (EPEAT®), Federal Energy Management

Program (FEMP), Non-Ozone Depleting Alternative Products (SNAP) and Water Efficient Plumbing Products (EPA WaterSense®).

The selected offeror must deliver products and services in compliance with the Environmentally Preferable Products and Services (EPP) article of the Sample Subcontract which implements the requirements of DEAR 970.5223-7 and 952.223-78, Sustainable Acquisition Program, as well as other federal- and state-mandated sustainability requirements.

As part of this requirement, the Subcontractor must report on compliance with recycled content requirements, bio-based, and/or energy-savings (i.e. EPEAT® and EnergyStar®) if applicable to their work effort or product being provided.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to consult the General Services Administration (GSA) Sustainable Facilities Tool (SFTool), the SFTool Product Search, and Vendor Resources pages within that site for additional information on the listed products and services potentially subject to these requirements.

Offerors should pay particular attention to the following subject areas and/or products and services that are frequently delivered as a part of LBNL’s subcontracted work efforts (the terms in parentheses are defined within the SF Tool site):

• Recycled Content Products (EPA Designated Products)

• Biobased Products (BioPreferred®)

• Energy Efficient Products (EnergyStar®)

• Environmentally Preferable and Energy Efficient Electronics (EPEAT®)

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction

• Non-Ozone Depleting Alternative Products

• Water Efficient Plumbing Products (EPA WaterSense®)

• Waste Reduction

LBNL is required to comply with UC policy on sustainable procurement to the extent to which they do not conflict with requirements in the Prime Contract with DOE. The UC policy prioritizes waste reduction in the following order: reduce, reuse, and then recycle. Accordingly, subcontractors and vendors must first reduce unnecessary purchasing and then prioritize purchasing surplus or multiple use products before purchasing recyclable or compostable products in accordance with the EPP article of the Sample Subcontract. UC Policy also sets forth requirements for:

● Packaging,

● a ban on foam and single use plastic food service and other product packaging, and

● E-Waste recycling not addressed in the Federal requirements.

The California In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation requires in-use off-road diesel-fueled fleet owners to report off-road diesel vehicle inventories and actions taken to reduce vehicle emissions to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). LBNL is required to obtain certificates from potential subcontractors and vendors using or offering equipment or fleets exceeding 25 total horsepower (HP) demonstrating compliance for Laboratory-related work in the State of California prior to award. A fleet is defined as one or more vehicles collectively exceeding 25 HP.

https://sftool.gov/greenprocurement https://sftool.ecomedes.com/ https://sftool.gov/learn/about/652/vendor-resources https://sftool.gov/greenprocurement https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/use-road-diesel-fueled-fleets-regulation

By submitting a proposal, offerors acknowledge the SAP and reporting requirements included in the Environmentally Preferable Products and/or Services article and General Provisions of the sample subcontract.

3.5 Shipping Insurance

All quotes and cost proposals must include the cost of shipping insurance to cover risk of loss of items in shipping. The subcontractor or their shipper shall be required to cover replacement of any and all items lost in shipping.

3.6 Notice of Sherman Antitrust Act – Federal Antitrust Enforcement This solicitation is subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act which prohibits agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or engage in other anticompetitive activity. Criminal prosecution of Sherman Act violations is the responsibility of the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice.

Violation of the Sherman Act is a felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and a $1 million fine for individuals and a fine of up to $100 million for corporations. In addition, collusion among competitors may also involve violations of the mail or wire fraud statute, the false statements statute, or other federal felony statutes, all of which the Antitrust Division prosecutes.

In addition to receiving a criminal sentence, a corporation or individual convicted of a Sherman Act violation may be ordered to make restitution to the victims for all overcharges. Victims of bid-rigging and price-fixing conspiracies also may seek civil recovery of up to three times the amount of damages suffered.

(END OF RFP DOCUMENT)