2-Request for Information - HB 195 Precious Metals.docx

Fto MARLO M. OAKS

STATE TREASURER OF UTAH

Request for Information - H.B. 195 Precious Metals

1. Introduction

The Utah Office of State Treasurer (“state”) is issuing this Request for Information (RFI) to gather information regarding existing or commercially available precious-metals-based payment platforms that could be utilized by the state pursuant to H.B. 195 (2026).

Respondents should focus on describing existing, commercially available capabilities rather than proposing custom development. The state is not seeking pricing proposals, contract terms, or commitments at this stage.

This RFI is intended to inform the structure, model, and requirements of a future Request for Proposals (RFP). The state is particularly interested in understanding how such platforms operate in practice, including how they may support business-to-business and business-to-consumer payment workflows, such as vendor and employee payments, when the state participates as a customer.

Under the contemplated model:

· The state will continue making payments in U.S. dollars;

· At the vendor’s election, payments may be routed through one or more selected platforms and converted into precious metals; and

· The platform, not the state, is responsible for custody, conversion, and account management.

This RFI is for planning purposes only and will not result in a contract.

1.1. Background

H.B. 195 (2026) authorizes the state to act as a market participant/customer by procuring one or more precious-metals-based payment platforms, similar to how the state procures and utilizes existing payment rails, such as ACH transfers, checks, and e-payables.

This approach is intentionally limited:

· The state does not develop, operate, or manage a payment platform;

· The state does not purchase or custody precious metals;

· The state does not maintain accounts on behalf of vendors; and

· Participation by vendors is entirely optional.

Instead, the state’s role is to procure and utilize one or more platforms as a customer, enabling vendors who elect to do so to receive payment in precious metals through those platforms.

Selected platforms will be expected to ensure that:

· Precious metals are vaulted in Utah;

· Holdings are independently audited and insured; and

· Assets are redeemable at the discretion of the account holder.

This RFI is intended to better understand how existing platforms can support this model and what approaches are most viable from an operational and technical perspective.

1.2. Core Objective & Scope of Work

The state is seeking information regarding existing platforms and service models that could support a vendor-elected precious metals payment option.

Respondents should focus on how their current or readily deployable solutions could be utilized by the state, particularly in the context of business-to-business and business-to- consumer payment workflows.

1. Platform Design and Architecture

a. Description of your existing platform(s) or service offering(s)

b. Description of whether your solution is:

i. Account-based: Transactions and ownership are managed through platform or custodial accounts and internal recordkeeping systems

ii. Tokenized: Transactions or ownership interests are represented through blockchain-based or digitally tokenized instruments

iii. Hybrid: Combines account-based and tokenized components

c. Description of:

i. How U.S. dollar payments are converted into precious metals

ii. How the state would interface with your platform as a customer

iii. Integration with existing payment systems (e.g., ACH, ERP systems)

iv. Scalability and transaction processing capabilities

2. Custody, Vaulting, and Asset Backing

a. How your platform provides custody of precious metals on behalf of vendors

b. Ability to ensure metals are vaulted within Utah

c. Ownership structure (allocated vs. pooled holdings)

d. How ownership is recorded and legally protected

e. Proof of reserves and reconciliation processes

f. Insurance coverage, limits, and providers

3. Transaction and Payment Functionality

a. End-to-end workflow for:

i. The state issuing payment in U.S. dollars

ii. Routing that payment through your platform (when elected by the vendor)

iii. Converting funds into precious metals

iv. Crediting the vendor’s account

b. Role of the state versus the platform at each step

c. Timing of conversion and settlement

4. Liquidity and Redemption

a. Methods for vendors to convert metals into:

i. U.S. dollars

ii. Physical precious metals

b. Redemption processes and timelines

c. Liquidity sources and market participants

d. Strategies to manage price volatility and settlement risk

5. Security and Technology Controls

a. Cybersecurity standards and certifications (e.g., SOC 2, ISO, GovRAMP/FedRAMP)

b. Data protection and encryption practices

c. Fraud prevention and transaction monitoring

d. System reliability, uptime, and disaster recovery

6. Privacy

· Compliance with GDPA §63A-19

7. Compliance and Legal Considerations

a. Approach to AML/KYC compliance

b. Compliance with applicable federal and state laws

c. Legal structure supporting custody of metals and vendor ownership rights

d. Any considerations related to Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution

e. Any legal, organizational, licensing, or jurisdictional considerations that may affect your ability to contract with a state governmental entity

8. Partnerships and Ecosystem

a. Identification of third-party participants, including:

i. Custodians

ii. Financial institutions

iii. Payment processors

iv. Liquidity providers

b. Roles and responsibilities of each party

c. Description of how the state would interact with the platform strictly as a customer making payments to vendors

9. Implementation and Scalability

a. Estimated timeline for implementation

b. Recommended approach, including any pilot or phased rollout

c. Key risks, constraints, or dependencies

d. Customer service and technical support model, including hours of operation, support channels, escalation procedures, and average response and resolution times

e. Implementation, onboarding, and training support that would be provided to the state during deployment and initial operations

f. Availability of dedicated account management, technical resources, or other support personnel that would be available to assist the state

2. Response Questions

Respondents are requested to provide clear and detailed responses to the following questions. These responses will be used to inform the structure and requirements of a future RFP.

1. Core Model and Approach

a. Describe your platform and how it would support the state’s use as a customer paying vendors.

b. Is your solution currently operational? If so, describe existing use cases.

c. What modifications, if any, would be required to support the state’s use case?

d. Do you recommend we consider choosing a single provider or multiple providers when we issue the RFP? Why?

e. Based on your experience, what core requirements should the state include in an RFP to ensure a functional and scalable solution?

2. Vendor Payment Workflow

a. Describe, step-by-step, how a payment from the state to a vendor would occur using your platform, including:

i. Payment initiation by the state

ii. Receipt of funds by your platform

iii. Conversion into precious metals

iv. Crediting the vendor’s account

b. What is the expected timing for payment receipt, conversion, and final settlement?

c. What role, if any, would you see the state playing beyond transmitting payment in U.S. dollars?

d. What operational risks exist within this workflow, and how are they mitigated?

3. Custody, Vaulting, and Ownership

a. How would your platform ensure that metals are held in custody within Utah and clearly owned by the vendor?

b. Describe your vaulting arrangements, including location, security standards, and operators.

c. What custody model is used, and what are the implications for ownership and risk:

i. Allocated: Specific precious metals are designated and held for an individual account holder;

ii. Unallocated: The account holder has a general claim to precious metals held by the platform or custodian rather than ownership of specifically identified metals; or

iii. Pooled: Precious metals are collectively held on behalf of multiple account holders with ownership interests tracked proportionally?

d. How is ownership recorded, verified, and transferred?

e. Describe your audit process, including frequency, independent verification, and reconciliation between physical metals and account balances?

f. What minimum vaulting, audit, insurance, and ownership standards would you recommend the state require in an RFP?

4. Redemption and Liquidity

a. What options are available to vendors (and other users) for redeeming holdings (e.g., U.S. dollars, physical metals)?

b. What are the timelines, limits, or conditions associated with redemption?

c. How does your platform ensure sufficient liquidity to support conversions and redemptions?

d. What risks exist related to liquidity or redemption, and how are they mitigated?

e. What minimum redemption and liquidity requirements should the state consider including in an RFP?

f. Integration with State Payment Processes

g. How would your platform integrate with the state’s existing payment processes (e.g., ACH, ERP systems)?

h. What changes, if any, would be required to current workflows?

i. Can your platform operate alongside existing payment methods without disruption?

j. What level of effort is required from the state (technical, operational, staffing) to implement and maintain integration?

k. What integration requirements should the state include in an RFP?

5. Security, Controls, and Reliability

a. What are the primary operational and cybersecurity risks associated with your platform?

b. Describe your cybersecurity framework and any relevant certifications.

c. How does your platform address fraud, errors, or failed transactions?

d. What service levels (e.g., uptime, recovery time) does your platform support?

e. What minimum security, control, and reliability standards should the state include in an RFP?

f. Describe your data breach incident response timeline and protocol in the event of unauthorized data access.

g. In the event of a data breach or unauthorized access to user data, what is your standard operational timeline and workflow for notifying state oversight authorities?

h. If the platform utilizes tokenization, distributed ledger technology, or blockchain-based components, describe the allocation of liability among the platform provider, custodians, technology providers, vendors, and other participants in the event of unauthorized access, fraud, system compromise, transaction errors, asset loss, or service disruption.

i. Describe any insurance, indemnification, financial guarantees, reserve funds, or other protections available to customers in the event of unauthorized access, asset loss, operational failure, or other platform-related incidents.

6. Privacy

a. What are the primary privacy risks associated with your platform?

b. Describe how your platform was constructed to align with privacy by design principles?

c. What minimum privacy preserving technologies and procedures should be included in an RFP.

d. How long do you need to retain personal data to make transactions and how long do you retain it after the transactions have been completed.

e. How does your platform enforce data minimization? Please describe your data retention schedules and automated secure destruction workflows for inactive accounts or historical transaction data.

f. How do you ensure proper destruction of data that has exceeded the retention period, is the process auditable, and do you provide reports that certify record destruction?

g. How do you prevent tracking the contents of individual purchases and users profiling?

h. If the system does use blockchain technology to process transactions, how does the platform ensure that users’ personal data is not publicly displayed on the blockchain?

i. What questions should be asked in the RFP to ensure that personal data is not processed for secondary uses or repurposed for marketing, sales, or other infonomics techniques used to generate revenue?

j. Does your platform employ a Duty of Loyalty model with customer data and what questions should be included in the RFP to ensure that a Duty of Loyalty approach to user data is employed?

k. How does your organization ensure downstream third-party and sub-processor compliance with privacy laws, standards, and best practices?

l. How do you evaluate and enforce your privacy standards—specifically regarding data profiling, secondary use, and the Duty of Loyalty—on the third-party custodians, payment processors, and liquidity providers within your network?

7. Legal and Structural Consideration

a. Describe the legal structure governing:

i. Custody of metals

ii. Customer ownership rights

b. How does your platform comply with applicable federal and state laws, including AML/KYC requirements?

c. Are there any legal, regulatory, or tax considerations the state should be aware of when utilizing your platform?

d. What legal or structural requirements should the state consider including in an RFP?

e. Describe any legal, organizational, licensing, or jurisdictional considerations that may affect your ability to contract with a state governmental entity.

f. Describe any material contractual requirements, limitations, or legal considerations that a governmental customer should be aware of, including any dispute resolution, venue, jurisdiction, limitation-of-liability, or indemnification provisions commonly used in your customer agreements.

8. Implementation and Scalability

a. What is the estimated timeline to onboard the state?

b. What are the key dependencies or prerequisites for implementation?

c. What level of adoption is required for the platform to be operationally and economically sustainable?

d. Beyond the state’s use, what types of customers does your platform currently serve or anticipate serving (e.g., businesses, individuals, financial institutions)?

e. How would the state’s use of the platform compare to other customers, including:

i. Onboarding

ii. Transaction processing

iii. Access to features or services

iv. Vaulting, auditing, and redemption practice

f. Would the state be treated as a standard customer of the platform, or would a different structure or arrangement be required? Please explain.

g. What implementation, scalability, or adoption requirements should the state consider including in an RFP?

9. Additional Input

a. What risks or challenges has your organization encountered in deploying similar platforms?

b. What alternative models or approaches should the state consider?

c. What other considerations or requirements should the state evaluate before issuing an RFP?

3. Submission Requirements

· Written responses addressing this RFI

· Supporting documentation (optional)

· Examples of similar implementations

4. Budget

No budget is associated with this RFI. Do not submit any cost information.

5. Reference Documents

· H.B. 195 (2026) – Precious Metals Amendments

· Utah Code § 63G-6a-409 1/7 image1.png image2.png