70RSAT26R00000003 - Q and C Responses - 20251231.pdf

70RSAT26R00000003 - Q and C Responses - 20251231 Offeror Questions and Government Responses

# Document & Section Citation Offeror Question/Comment Government Response

1 Pg 7: Section C.3 Pg 7: Requirement 4.24.3.1

Can you clarify the desires or limitations for Autonomous Control? Some statements specifically expect autonomous control (e.g. pg 7 Section c.3) where others seem to prohibit autonomous control (e.g. pg 7 Requirement 4.24.3.1). What is intended for local control v. remote monitoring?

Pg. 15-16 For purposes of this contract:

Autonomous operation means local, onboard automatic control functions executed by the reactor system within Government-approved parameters (e.g., startup sequencing, steady-state control, protective actions), and does not include remote operation. Remote monitoring means non-actuating, supervisory observation of system status or telemetry that does not enable remote command, control, maintenance, configuration changes, or safety-critical actions.

Remote operation or remote maintenance means any offsite command, actuation, tuning, calibration, patching, configuration change, or control action that can affect reactor safety, security, power generation, or protective functions.

2 Pg 13: 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 Pg 33-34: 9.4, 9.5, 9.6

Please clarify the breakdown of the milestone tranches.

Performance and Objective Requirements lists:

Prototype 18%

FOAK 30%

NOAK 38%

Deliverables Summary Lists:

Prototype 15%

FOAK 30%

NOAK 35%

These sum to less than 100%. Is it up to the bidder to propose the overall contract value allocation or are there restrictions on tranches?

Follow the percentages of total effort found in the pricing template. The narrative does not list the percentage for each milestone section - 5/15/35/40/5 - which adds to 100.

Pg 7: 1. Deliver a Dual-Mode

Microreactor System (Transportable + Mobile)

Could you please clarify the statement: “A single-mode solution is unacceptable; Offerors must satisfy both modes to be compliant”?

Specifically, does DHS intend that both modes be supported using the same system configuration and operating parameters, or are multiple configurations of the same system acceptable, provided each configuration satisfies one of the required modes? We believe this distinction is particularly relevant when considering transportable versus mobile use cases.

By way of analogy, this could be compared to launch vehicles such as the Falcon 9, which has expendable, reusable, and extended-fairing configurations, or to aircraft variants like the F-15C, optimized for air-to-air combat, and the F-15E, designed for air-to-ground missions.

DHS intends both to be supported using the same or similar configurations. Please see Pg 22 6.1; Pg 26 7.2

4 Pg 8: 5. Produce and Deliver Nth-of-a-Kind (NOAK) Units

It is noted that DHS would like delivery of 10 reactors by 31 December 2028. It is noted that the desired requirement is for factory-fueled systems, however it does not note that DHS will be providing HALEU as part of the program. Domestic supply of HALEU may be strained to meet this timeline. Is DHS contemplating means to provide HALEU from DOE as government furnished equipment?

DHS understands that this is a risk. Offerors should thoroughly address this aspect in their proposal - consistent with the evaluation factors provided in Section M.

Pg 7: 1. Deliver a Dual-Mode

Microreactor System (Transportable + Mobile)

What constitutes as “Minimal Site Preparation”? Can this be defined temporally or in number of man-hours for construction? Does this imply limitations on the types of equipment that can be brought in and used?

Refer to Pg 11 4.1

Pg 8-9: 6. Meet all Licensing, Safety, and Regulatory Requirements

In the Program Objectives - “Meet all Licensing, Safety, and Regulatory Requirements” - NEPA Environmental Assessment is noted. For a mobile system which could be placed anywhere, whenever DHS would want to deploy power, how could this be achieved at time of delivery when a site is still not yet specified? Does DHS intend to perform a programmatic NEPA that could cover any deployment site or obtain some categorical exclusion for the technology?

DHS intends to address the NEPA considerations

7 Pg 9: 8. Enable Safe, Secure Transport and Redeployment

For over-the-road transport, is it anticipated that Contractors will need to utilize heavy and super load permits (depending on state) or are contractors required to meet standard vehicle weight limits for every state?

Offeror should propose solution to meet the requirement

8 Pg 6: Key Deliverable Attributes Pg 15: 4.13 Fuel Requirements

The “Key Deliverable Attributes” notes a requirement for “>3- 10 years core life without refueling” while the “Dual-Mode Deployment Performance” section notes “Minimum microreactor core life of 5+ years without refueling”. Which is the requirement?

3 to 10 years

Pg 6: Key Deliverable Attributes

Pg 15: Power Output and Availability Requirements

The “Dual-Mode Deployment Performance” section notes that “Individual Reactor modules shall provide >0.7MWe (T) and up to 2MWe (O) with the ability to integrated multiple reactor into a distributed system.” Please clarify and does this contradict the power level specified in the original “Key Deliverable Attributes” table that specifies 1-5MWe.

The requirement is individual reactors can provide 0.7 to 2MWe each but have the ability to integrate with multiple reactors to increase power supply uniformly

10 Pg 25: 7.1 Schedule Constraints

In the “Mandatory Deployment Deadline“ section it notes that ”The microreactor system must be mission-ready by December 2028“. This is the delivery date target for the 10th unit, is this supposed to be December 2027?

1st unit is expected Dec 2027 and 10th unit is expected Dec

11 Pg 11: 4.3 Onsite Maintenance Operation

In the Performance Objective and Requirements, Section 4.3 “Onsite Maintenance Operation“ - it notes a requirement for Minimal staffing requirements (no 24/7 on-site operations).

To our knowledge there is no regulatory code that currently exists which would license a reactor without 24/7/365 on-site operators while the reactor is running. Can you clarify what is meant by this statement?

Offeror can provide cost for 24/7/365 by year so government can understand impact if regulations change

12 Pg 15: 4.17 Operations Architecture and Control

It is stated that, "Transportable mode operations shall be controlled from a local control room at the site installation."

Does this requirement apply to Mobile mode operations as well?

Yes

13 Pg 16: 4.18 Radiation Dose Requirements

If the proposed regulatory pathway is through DOE authorities, is compliance with 10 CFR 835 limits in lieu of 10 CFR 20 limits acceptable?

Yes

14 Pg 19: 5.1 Mobile Power Asset

Can additional details regarding the intended use duration be provided for the mobile configuration? Various trade offs exist between system performance and transportation realities. A more detailed understanding of duration and frequency of desired use will aid in executing trades that would result in an optimized solution for DHS.

Offeror should consider these elements in their response

15 Section C. Requirements – Scope or Mission pg 6

The table of key deliverable attributes on p. 6 states “>3-10 years of core life without refueling”. On p. 15, 4th bullet from top of page states “minimum microreactor core life of 5+ years without refueling”. Please clarify the Threshold (T) and Objective (O) minimum refueling intervals. 3 to 10 years

16 Section C – Requirements p10

The bullet at the top of p. 10 specifies that Contractor deliver 12 months of initial operational support. The table at the bottom of p. 10 shows operational support for “5 years from delivery”. Please clarify the intent. For instance, is the Contractor requested to provide 12 months of initial operational support for each unit (prototype, FOAK – Unit 1, NOAK – Units 2-10) – for a total of 11 units @ 12 months each)?

These would be structured as option years under the Contract Line Items ending in "5.".

17 4. Performance Objectives, 4.5 pg12

There is no mention of a Final Safety Analysis Report (NRC) or a Final Documented Safety Analysis (DOE) as a licensing performance requirement. Is it expected that the provider will obtain Final Safety Analysis approval from the regulator or will this be DHS activity.

Offeror is required to address all regulatory requirements.

Sections 4.7 and 5.5, &

Section 8.5. pgs 13 and 20, and pg 30

What are the expectations/requirements for transportation of the prototype? Sections 4.7 and 5.5 dealing with the FOAK require achieving Type B or equivalent transport certification.

Such a requirement is not listed in sections 4.6 or 5.4 for the prototype. Also, Section 8.5 mentions DHS coordination of interagency transport logistics for FOAK and NOAK deliveries, but is silent on prototype delivery.

Offeror should propose solution to transport the prototype.

Refer to Pg 16 4.20; Pg 39 F.2

4. Performance Objectives, 4.9 &

4.20 Pg 14 & 16

The statement, “meets DOT/NRC/DOE transport regulations” is somewhat in conflict with the later requirement in 4.20 on page 16 for Transport Configuration requirements stating, “Transport radiation exposure must meet 10 CFR 20.1301 limits”. Is it also expected that transport configuration requirements meet NRC/DOT requirements in 10CFR71.47?

Yes.

4.15 Power Output and

Availability Requirements p.15 and Key Deliverable Attributes

Table p. 6

Please clarify the desired power range: p15 had "Individual reactor modules shall provide ≥0.7 MWe (T) and up to 2 MWe (O) with the ability to integrated multiple reactor into a distributed system. Electrical availability shall be ≥90% once connected to local microgrid for load management. While the Key Attributes Table on p6 lists 1–5 MWe continuous electrical output

0.7 - 2MWe per reactor

21 5. Expected Outcomes, 5.5 & 5.7 Pg 20

The statement in 5.5, “DHS shall receive a FOAK microreactor unit that - Is fully licensed or authorized for federal demonstration” implies that a Final Safety Analysis Report (NRC) or a Final Documented Safety Analysis (DOE) is required by the performer. Later (5.7., 9.2), only a Preliminary Safety Analysis is listed. Does DHS expect a Final Safety Analysis to be achieved by the provider?

Offeror is required to address all regulatory requirements.

6. Performance Metrics &

Success Criteria, 6.1 Pg 22

“Redeployment - System can transition between sites within the Offeror-proposed timeframe without hardware modification.” Are there minimum time requirements expected or are the timing requirements expected to be informed by the radiological transport requirements of DOT/NRC?

Offeror should propose a solution and timeline.

6. Performance Metrics &

Success Criteria, 6.1 & 6.6 pgs 23-24

Can you clarify the success criteria “Licensing Progress - Regulator acceptance of FOAK licensing package with safety-critical RAIs resolved” and “Safety Analysis - PSAR and supporting documents accepted by regulators”. Does this mean regulator acceptance for review or actual regulator approval of either the Preliminary or Final Safety Analysis for the FOAK unit?

Yes.

24 7. Constraints and Assumptions,

7.3 pg26

Please clarify the requirement “Safety Analysis Deliverables - A complete PSAR is required” in relation to other parts of the request that imply the FOAK unit must be delivered “fully authorized for federal demonstration” (see 5.5). Is the performer expected to obtain approval of the Final Safety Analysis prior to delivery?

Yes.

25 7. Constraints and Assumptions,

7.3 pg27

Please clarify whether the fuel will be government owner/ provided?

DHS understands that this is a risk. Offerors should thoroughly address this aspect in their proposal - consistent with the evaluation factors provided in Section M.

26 7. Constraints and Assumptions,

7.10 pg28

Please clarify “Offerors will maintain responsibility for licensing, safety case generation, and certification” . Is Offeror expected to achieve Final Safety Analysis approval versus other statements that are limited to only Offeror responsibility for Preliminary Safey Analysis?

Yes.

7.9 Government-Furnished

Information & Support &

8.3 Regulatory Engagement and

Support

Does DHS intend to fund regulatory review fees directly, or should they be incorporated into cost estimates?

Regulatory review fees should be embedded in proposed pricing.

28 Section 8.2 pg29

For the site technical data mentioned on p. 29, does DHS intend to provide an enveloping set of site conditions such that the risk of future design changes (after the prototype) associated with site-specific conditions is minimized?

No.

29 9. Deliverables and Summary.

9.2 pg32

Is there room to negotiate Intellectual Property within the deliverable requirement for “Digital twin / modeling files” Yes.

30 9. Deliverables and Summary.

9.2 pg33

Contractor deliverable is limited to “Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR)” . Does this mean that DHS will provide and represent the Final Safety Analysis to the regulator?

Offeror is required to address all regulatory requirements.

31 9. Deliverables and Summary.

9.5 pg 34

Please clarify what defines the “FOAK licensing completion package” – is this limited to PSAR per 9.2 or does this include FSAR and final regulatory approval

Offeror is required to address all regulatory requirements.

32 Section H.1 Reactor Operational Authority

Reactor Operational Authority identifies the Government as the operational authority for the reactor, but many of roles established in the Atomic Energy Act are unclear in the solicitation. Please clarify if DHS will be the Owner and Operator of the reactor units for whom licenses will be sought, and if the contractor will seek those on DHS’ behalf.

DHS is anticpated to be the owner and operator of the reactors.

33 Indemnification pg 55

The indemnification offered on Page 55 of 71 is provided through the Secretary of Energy’s authorities under the Atomic Energy Act in 170d. Please clarify the need to address DOE’s rules, regulations, and orders through the anticipated lifecycle to ensure the applicability of these clauses.

DHS will address indemnification in collaboration with DOE.

34 Throughout the RFP

Please clarify the assignment of responsibilities for prototype licensing and operations including delineation between the Contractor and the Idaho National Laboratory and the Department of Homeland Security.

Offeror is required to address all regulatory requirements.

DHS will be the owner and operator.

35 Contract Award Dollar Amount pg1

Are the RFP contract amounts of $361,500,000 - $722,000,000.00, each/per Offeror, or the total amount for two Offerors?

The $722M estimate accounts for two contract awards.

36 Program Objectives 5. Produce & Deliver NOAK units pg 8

Will DHS accept proposals in which a compliant microreactor system for NOAK is delivered past 2028? No.

Program Objectives 8. Enable

Safe, Secure Transport, & Redeployment pg 9

Can the reactor be designed/delivered on a ship/barge to satisfy the stationary and mobility requirements and FEMA & DHS emergency type responses?

Yes - but will also need to utilize other transport modes.

Modes of transportation should be described in proposal.

38 Performance Objectives & Requirements pg 10

Is there a sole-source, Power Purchase Agreement, or other contracting opportunity for the selected Offeror, after the delivery of the 10th Reactor? Are the 12 months and 5 year, post-delivery Operational Support a separate contract?

The post delivery operational support is expected to be provided under the same contract as the initial development and delivery.

Please confirm the required date for FOAK Delivery Deadline, •December 31, 2027: Listed in the Key Performance

Milestone table, FOAK Performance Metric, and Schedule Performance Metric.

•December 31, 2028: Listed as the deadline for Factor 2 evaluation.

FOAK delivery requirement is December 31, 2027.

Clarification 2: Please confirm the required date for Prototype Electrical Generation, •June 30, 2027: Listed in the Key Performance Milestone table and Prototype Performance Metrics.

•June 30, 2028: Listed under Section 7.1, "Prototype

Schedule Milestones".

June 30, 2027

Clarification 3: In summary of the above two clarification questions, our understanding is that the baseline dates in the table at the seciton entitled "PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS" represents requirements, not desirements, and that we should consider this the source of truth. Could you confirm if this is correct?

The dates in the Performance Objectives and Requirements table are the required milestones/delivery dates. DHS is offering incentives for earlier delivery.

Clarification 4: This respondent believes it is faster and less expensive to separate prototype criticality testing and prototype power generation. Could you confirm if there is DHS flexibility to reduce cost and schedule risk by allowing offerers to use separate systems to complete prototype criticality and prototype power conversion, provided that both success criteria in 6.2 Prototype Performance Metrics are achieved timely with the dates as set forth in the RFP?

Yes.