B09-Questions_and_Responses_0001.pdf

Questions and Responses 140M0126Q0046

1. Is there a preference for university-based core processing vs. commercial labs?

Response: No preference

2. Does SBA status weigh in?

Response: This competition is full and open. It is not set aside for small business.

3. Core inventory and location. Appendix 1, Table 1 lists 208 cores: 68 flagged Existing (GLO- UPOCS-VC-24 series) and 140 flagged Proposed (VC_001–VC_147 series). Section 2.2 states the cores "are in storage in Austin, TX and Boca Raton, FL." Please confirm that all 208 cores — including the 140 marked "Proposed" — physically exist and are currently accessioned and available for subsampling, and identify which cores are held at which repository, with a count for each. If the "Proposed" cores are not yet collected, please clarify what is in scope for this purchase order.

Response: The proposed cores are currently being collected in the field. They will be collected either by the time of award or shortly thereafter. The period of performance under this contract was developed to accommodate access to those cores.

4. Deliverable count and pricing basis. Section 2.2 specifies up to 300 samples from up to 208 cores (an average of ~1.4 samples per core), while Section 2.4.4-2 requires a 1–3 page Critical Minerals Core Report per core. Please confirm whether the Quoter should price 208 core reports or only reports for the subset of cores actually sampled. Relatedly, Section 4.5.1 requests per-sample test pricing while Section 1.2 establishes a single Firm-Fixed-Price CLIN: should the Quoter price to the maximum quantities (300 samples / 208 cores / 20 mineralogy samples), and is any quantity-adjustment mechanism contemplated if actuals fall below those ceilings? Please also confirm whether the up-to-20 QEM/TIMA mineralogy samples are in the base price or a separately priced option.

Response: Quoter should provide a firm-fixed-price. Reports are required for the subset of cores actually sampled. QEM/TIMA priced as an option is up to the Quoter’s discretion.

5. Required analytical methods and available sample mass. Section 2.3.2 lists XRF, HLS, ICP-MS, and ICP-OES interchangeably. Several target elements (Zr, Hf, Nb, Ta, REE, Cr, Ti) are hosted in refractory phases and are systematically under-reported by partial (aqua regia / 4-acid) digestion, so please confirm whether lithium borate fusion or an equivalent total-digestion method is required, or whether partial digestion with documented limitations is acceptable — and whether laboratory ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation and specific QA/QC (CRM, duplicate, and blank frequency) are required. On heavy-mineral separation, Section 2.2 cites gravity spirals, which require kilogramscale feed and are not practical on core subsamples: will BOEM accept bench-scale heavy liquid separation (LST or sodium polytungstate) plus magnetic fractionation, and what specific-gravity cutoff (2.85 vs. 2.96) and size fraction should HMS percentage be reported against? Finally, what is the maximum mass available per sample, since a defensible heavy-mineral concentration by mass typically requires 50–200 g of dry material and this constraint governs which methods are feasible at all.

Response: Sodium Peroxide fusion ICP analysis is acceptable. Heavy liquid separation is acceptable. Up to 200g or more is available per sample.

6. Deliverable schedule, data schema, and delivery mechanism. The deliverable due dates in Sections 2.3.5, 2.4.4, and 2.5 do not reconcile: Core Summary Reports are due "within 5 days of completion" of an undefined event; the Methodology Paper and Tabular Data are due "within 2 months of finishing final core summary report," while Section 2.3.5 requires all raw and processed data transferred "within 60 days of sample analysis completion"; and the SF-18 shows a Deliver By date of 04/01/2028 against an 18-month period of performance from an award date TBD. Please provide a single reconciled deliverable schedule and confirm whether the 04/01/2028 date shifts if award occurs later than anticipated. In the same connection: does the "BOEM specified schema" for tabular data (Sections 2.4.4-3, 2.5) exist today and can it be provided at award, and will the Contractor and its subcontractor laboratories be granted external BOEM SharePoint accounts — and if so, does access require PIV credentials, background investigation, or DOI IT security training, since that onboarding gates every deliverable?

Response: The date on the SF-18 is for illustrative purposes only. The period of performance start date will be based on the timing of the award. PIV credentials, background investigations, security training, etc. are not anticipated for this requirement.

7. Given that the new RFQ appears intended to reduce overall project cost from the previous RFQ, does BOEM want all 300 samples analyzed for elemental properties using each outlined method— XRF, HLS, ICP-MS, and ICP-OES—even though XRF and ICP-MS may produce largely duplicative results? Or does BOEM prefer using one method, such as XRF, for elemental analysis of all 300 samples, followed by additional elemental testing, such as ICP-MS and/or HLS, on a selected subset before mineralogical quantification? The latter would provide a more cost-conscious approach while still addressing analytical gaps not captured by XRF.

Response: The quote should include a standard approach for testing for Critical Minerals - not every test has to be used. ICP testing is preferred for elemental analysis on most samples.