DAF RFI Mineral Processing.pdf

CUI

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION No. DAF-MINERALS-AFCEC-26-R-0011 RFI

ENHANCED USE LEASE (“EUL”) OPPORTUNITIES

POTENTIAL MINERAL PROCESSING LEASING OPPORTUNITIES

DATE OF ISSUANCE: 9 September 2026

To be considered, responses conforming to the requirements of this RFI must be received no later than 5:00 P.M. (EST), 9 October 2026

Questions regarding this RFI may not be considered after 5:00 P.M. (EST), 23 September 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Executive summary

2. Response submission

3. Special conditions and limitations

4. Limitations

5. Point of contact

1. Executive summary

1.1. Purpose

This Request for Information (RFI) is the first phase of a process to leverage non-excess under-utilized Department of the Air Force (DAF) surface land to accelerate economic development in the United States and to enhance mission readiness in connection with presidential directives and policy directing agencies to leverage federal assets to support mineral processing facilities, to include processing of rare earth elements.

For purposes of this RFI, mineral processing is strictly limited to surface use activities, including refining, and smelting of minerals, and the production of processed critical minerals and other derivative products. This RFI does not solicit interest in the exploration or extraction of subsurface minerals. While the Department of the Interior/Bureau of Land Management (DOI/ BLM) generally controls the leasing and disposition of federally owned subsurface minerals, the DAF maintains authority over whether and under what conditions a party may physically occupy or use the surface of a DAF installation consistent with mission requirements.

This RFI solicits input from industry to inform the development of a Request for Lease Proposal (RFLP) that will attract strong responses from potential developers. The goal is to identify ideal candidate parcels for parties interested in entering into surface-use agreements, including but not necessarily limited to leases under 10 U.S.C. 2667, to facilitate the development of mineral processing and other surface facilities at DAF installations. As a condition for entering upon an installation, the DAF may require a separate real estate instrument or surface-use authorization.

In return for the use of the surface land, the DAF may request or receive consideration in an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the real estate interest (See Title 10, U.S.C. 2667 (b)(4)).

Specifically, this RFI seeks to better inform the DAF on:

• Feasibility of industry to develop and operate a mineral processing facility on DAF managed surface land without DAF provision of raw mineral inputs or purchase of refined mineral outputs.

• Industry perspectives on the characteristics that make sites suitable for mineral processing facility surface use.

• Industry preference in solicitation and lease or other real estate agreement options for surface access.

2. Potential sites

The DAF anticipates making multiple parcels of surface land potentially available for mineral processing at locations within the Continental United States. The DAF has conducted a preliminary analysis of its installations and has initially identified several with potential for the processing of mineral resources. While respondents are encouraged to propose any Total Force DAF installation or mineral(s) for consideration, preliminary findings have highlighted the following sites and associated development considerations:

• Mountain Home AFB, Idaho: The DAF has identified land at this installation, particularly within the Saylor Creek and Juniper Butte Ranges. Developers must address several constraints: (i) the electrical supply is from a single-source provider and is near capacity, likely requiring new substations for any significant new load; (ii) the local aquifer is experiencing a steady decline, and water availability is a critical concern; and (iii) the site is also in proximity to the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area and is subject to an ongoing cultural resources survey.

• Luke AFB, Arizona: Barry M. Goldwater Range East at Luke AFB shows potential for the location of mineral facilities, but developers may be required to navigate significant constraints. Specifically: (i) infrastructure is limited, potentially requiring new ROWs and extensive electrical upgrades over both DOW and BLM managed lands; (ii) Water access is restricted; (iii) the site is in an EPA nonattainment area; and (iv) the site hosts critical habitat for the Sonoran Pronghorn and Acuna Cactus. Additionally, the range abuts the Tohono O’odham Reservation and is historically significant to numerous Native American tribes

• Kirtland AFB, New Mexico: At Kirtland AFB, 900 acres of mountainous terrain are potentially available for development. Significant constraints may exist.

Specifically: (i) the potential site faces utility limitations and may require both transmission and substation upgrades; (ii) water availability may pose a risk due to aging and unreliable well infrastructure; and (iii) there may be concerns related to endangered species and the presence of some IRP/ERP sites.

• Hill AFB, Utah: The Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) is a large, remote area that may present opportunities. The range features varied desert terrain with a history of disturbance from mission activities. Significant constraints may exist Specifically:

(i) the land is critical for air-to-air and air-to-ground training, which cannot be impeded;

(ii) development may require significant investment in electrical infrastructure, including new transmission lines and substations;(iii) water access is a critical concern due to the arid environment;(iv) the site contains certain environmental restoration areas with land use restrictions; (v) and the site is subject to cultural resource considerations with multiple federally recognized tribes.

DAF is aware that varied minerals may also be processed from previously extracted waste rock.

For example, Rare Earth Elements (REEs) could potentially be processed from resources such as phosphogypsum stacks near installations. Other surface facilities that the DAF is willing to consider include separation, purification, milling, smelting, washing, furnaces, concentrators and refineries. Respondents are therefore encouraged to identify processing operations or facilities capable of producing multiple or alternative minerals from surface-level processing. Respondents are asked to provide input on site-selection criteria to help the DAF identify and select sites that will be attractive for development of mineral processing facilities (see 2.2.3, below).

3. Development impacts The DAF is interested in understanding what types of mineral processing facilities could be attractive for surface development and understanding the potential impacts on the installation and the local community.

2. Response submission

1. RFI responses Submit RFI responses via email to Jeff Blankenship, with the subject line: “DAF EUL MINERAL PROCESSING RFI Response”. Responses must be received no later than 5:00 P.M.

(EST) on 9 October 2026.

2. Content Responses to this RFI should address the following:

1. Point of contact

Identify a person who is the single point of contact (“POC”) responsible for all communications with respect to this RFI.

2. Experience Provide a description of the assembled team or sponsoring organization. Describe your team’s experience related to the development and operation of surface mineral processing projects applicable to the requested concepts.

3. Request for Information Include responses to all questions from 2.2.3.1 through 2.2.3.5 for each site of interest.

2.2.3.1. What minerals would be most likely candidates for surface mineral processing?

2.2.3.2. Desired locations or Air Force installations, please list all potential sites of interest with any associated caveats or constraints or applicable site prioritization.

2.2.3.3. Developer experience and deal structure:

• Suggest appropriate metrics for experience in planning, financing, and constructing similar concepts to those contemplated under this RFI.

• What is the typical deal structure? Would developers build and continue to maintain the lease, or other real estate interest, or enter a sublease, or assign the real property rights to a mineral processing operator?

• What are typical financing structures for development? Please comment on any other typically required lender and/or investor terms.

• What might be a minimum acceptable initial lease term, barring any extensions or renewals?

• What risks can the government mitigate to make a site attractive for development or areas where the government could provide support? Please identify any barriers to success.

• Describe ideal timelines, objectives and milestones for a mineral processing project.

• Is a 30-day period reasonable to prepare proposals after release of a Request For Lease Proposal (RFLP)? If longer is preferred, please specify.

• Would industry days on site be beneficial to inform an RFLP response?

• Describe your proposed approach to community engagement and coordination with local municipalities, utility providers, and stakeholders near the installation.

• Evidence of market demand for the proposed development.

2.2.3.4. Site characteristics:

• Identify site selection criteria that will be attractive for the development of mineral processing facilities, such as:

• Optimal site conditions (e.g., size, slope, access, environmental limitations)

• Optimum size considerations, in acreage and proportions (i.e., 1:1, 3:2, 1:4, etc.).

• Soil characteristics for evaporation or retention ponds for any processing facilities

• Power requirements. The DAF does not intend to provide power generation; what solutions do you recommend?

• Water / wastewater requirements. The DAF does not intend to provide water; what solutions do you recommend?

• Waste stream treatment requirements

• Natural gas and thermal requirements

• Facility characteristics (e.g., ceiling height, loading dock, ventilation etc.)

• Height of any on-site equipment or structures

• Transportation access (e.g., proximity to rail or highway, gross vehicle weight and vehicle height or weight)

• Transportation frequency: Will vehicles need access daily?

• Access control or perimeter requirements

• Desired location on the installation

• Is there desire for future expansion of mineral processing facilities and if so, would the sites need to be co-located?

• What other site criteria are important not covered here?

2.2.3.5. Project feasibility and impact: Developers should provide preliminary information available related to the following questions.

• List any Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) security considerations.

• Are there any notable health concerns or constraints that would impact siting of mineral processing facilities? For instance: Should the site be located near populations?

Should the site be located near surface or ground water resources?

• Are there any beneficial colocations? E.g. in:

• Product: Waste streams that can become inputs to a process.

• Infrastructure: Waste heat may be able to be connected to district heat systems or otherwise beneficially reused by the installation.

• Are there any local workforce considerations that are necessary for project success? E.g., proximity to universities or trained workforces.

• Will facility connect to local community utility systems and how might it impact installation utility systems?

• Any specific physical or cyber security requirements, impacts, or threats aligned to the technology/mineral.

• To what extent is the ability of the developer to manage their own access control (separate from installation access control points) important during construction and/or operation? Would the lack of this ability dissuade a proposal?

• Anticipated quantity and type of traffic in and out of the site.

• Describe anticipated environmental outputs: air quality, water quality, solid waste, hazardous waste, noise, vibrations, etc.

• Do you anticipate a need to store or dispose of hazardous materials or hazardous waste?

• For the purposes of this RFI the definition of “hazardous or toxic materials shall include materials referred to in 10 U.S.C. § 2692(a)(2) which includes materials referred to in section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. § 9601(14)) and materials designated under section 102 of that Act (42 U.S.C. § 9602) and shall include materials that are of an explosive, flammable, or pyrotechnic nature.

• Describe other foreseeable hazards from activities at the site including, but not limited to: Radiologic, Chemical, Explosive Safety Risk, Fire Risk.

• Describe environmental hazards which proposed activities may be particularly sensitive to. (e.g., flooding, fire, extreme weather events).

• To the extent available, provide non-confidential information related to sources of minerals to be processed.

• Discuss how activities could avoid mission interferences, to the extent known or foreseeable.

• Discuss the reclamation plan, to the extent known or foreseeable for mineral processing facilities.

• Any potential lessee shall be responsible, at its own expense, for reimbursing the government for costs associated with compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Please discuss any concerns with fully complying with NEPA prior to entering into/executing a lease.

2.2.3.6 General Development Questions:

• Is there a general location preference (Inside/outside installation fence line)

• Is there a minimum or maximum acreage requirement for your response

4. Site Specific Issue Mitigation

For any specific installation mentioned in Section 1.2 that you express interest in, please provide a detailed response addressing how your development concept may mitigate the specific challenges and constraints identified for that site (e.g., electrical infrastructure upgrades, water scarcity, environmental compliance, tribal consultations). Respondents should detail their potential approach, estimated timelines for overcoming these hurdles, and any support required from the DAF to help meet its responsibility under NEPA and other environmental laws.

3. Submission

Responses must be received no later than 5:00 P.M (EST), 9 October 2026.

3. Special conditions and limitations

3.1. This is a Request for Information only

This RFI is a market research tool to determine the availability and adequacy of potential opportunities for the DAF’s information and planning purposes. This is not a Request for Lease Proposal (“RFLP”), or a promise to issue another solicitation type in the future.

This RFI does not obligate the Government to offer the property or purchase services from any responder, and the DAF reserves the right to cancel this RFI at any time. The DAF is not at this time seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. By participating in the RFI process, all responders agree to hold the United States of America, its officers, employees, and advisors harmless from all claims, liabilities, and costs related to all aspects of this RFI. Under no circumstances shall the United States of America be liable for any costs, real estate brokerage commissions, finder’s fees, or other forms of compensation related in any way to activities undertaken by any person as a result of or in response to the RFI; all costs incurred in responding to this RFI will be solely and exclusively at the interested party’s expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFLP, if one is issued.

3.2. Discussions

The DAF may seek clarifications with any or all responders on an individual or group basis.

Submission of a response does not guarantee the opportunity to participate in discussions.

3.3. Waiver

The DAF reserves the right to waive informalities and irregularities in responses received if it is determined that it is in the best interest of the Government to do so.

3.4. Non-FAR acquisition

Leasing actions involving real property are not governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(“FAR”).

3.5. Responses considered public documents

Responses will not be made public by the DAF except in accordance with law. However, responses may be disclosed by the DAF to any person, upon request, to the extent required or authorized by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552). Information submitted may be afforded protection from public disclosure if the respondent identifies the same as “proprietary” with supporting justification and requests such protection at the time of submission. Each page that is considered proprietary must be clearly marked as such.

4. Limitations

The information and assumptions included in this RFI, including all exhibits and supporting documents, are based on best available information. However, the DAF makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of such information and assumptions. Respondents should verify all information provided by the DAF.

5. Point of contact All questions, clarifications, and general information regarding this RFI must be submitted to the DAF POC, Jeff Blankenship, via email at (jeffrey.blankenship.2@us.af.,mil and afcec.ciue.workflow@us.af.mil before 5 P.M. (EST) on 9 October 2026.

mailto:jeffrey.blankenship.2@us.af.,mil mailto:afcec.ciue.workflow@us.af.mil