IBAS_REE_initiatives_20230112_Industry_question_responses.pdf

Question # Source Reference Question Government Response

1 RFS section 5.4.1 bullet 3

"A continous process working faciltiy capable of tonnage feedstock" Is this referring to the ability to process tons of feed over the project's timeline or is a specific daily or monthly feedstock volume required?

There is no specific requirement for daily or monthly volumes.

Government will assess solutions equally with preference for ability to demonstrate tonnage feedstock separation quickly and efficiently.

2 RFS 5.4.2.4 bullet d

Looking at the deliverables, the 23 month ARA - Main Project Deliverables states the Commercial feasibility of rare earth extraction via AMD operations and technologies.

Does this require the use of AMD feed to produce REO>REM, or can this come from other feedstocks? I ask because this is the only reference to AMD in Topic 2.

AMD feedstock is only required for Topic 1. Bullet d removed from paragraph 5.4.2.4

RFS sectionTopic 2 Background page 6, REE Sepearation definition

Topic 2 backround states - "The scope of this prototype effort will focus on developing advancements in solvent extraction technology and separation process enhancement capabilities." Further, REE Separation is defined as "...must be chemically divided by

�liquid liquid extraction methods to use for technological applications."

We intend to propose a non-chemical, High-temperature process for the separation of rare earth elements. Is a solution that does not involve solvent extraction compliant with the RFS?

This RFS will consider alternative methods of separation other than liquid-liqid. Vendors will be responsible for providing a comparison of the merits and benefits of their proposed alternative method, if not liquid-liquid.

This RFS intends to award a project capable of demonstrating the proposed technology for REE separation, while meeting prototype TRLs and project timelines.

4 RFS section 5.4.1 bullet 1

Topic 2 Requirements (section 5.4.1)– States, “Rare earth separation processing capability at a rate more efficient than CSX REE separation methods utilizing a shake flask test**. **Note: the awarded vendor shall provide a demonstrated CSX REE separation shake flask test baseline rate(s) to the Government at the beginning of the project PoP that will be used to measure the vendor’s prototype separation efficiency rate against at the end of the PoP. The vendor shall provide details on the aqueous and/or clay solution used for the CSX separation shake flask test that includes a list of the extracted REE metals.”

We intend to propose a non-chemical, High-temperature process for the separation of rare earth elements. As such, it is not possible to submit a shake flask test. Is a solution that cannot provide a shake flask test on award compliant with the RFS?

This RFS will consider alternative methods from the shake test to determine efficiency rate of separation.

Vendors will be responsible for providing a comparison of the merits and benefits of their proposed alternative method, if not using a shake-flask test.

5 RFS section 7b bullet 2

Topic 2 selection critera calls out “existing REE separation processing plant details including achieved TRLs”

Our high-temperature approach will leverage an existing funded project to establish a demonstration plant conceptual design. Therefore, there is no existing plant to discuss. Will the lack of an existing plant eliminate a proposal from consideration?

This RFS intends to award a proejct with existing facilties capable of demonstrating the proposed technology for REE separation.

This RFS intends to award a project capable of demonstrating the proposed technology for REE separation, while meeting prototype TRLs and project timelines.

Given answers to the questions, will the government consider an extension?

Amendment 02 issued on December 09, 2022, extended the submission due date to January 17, 2023.

7 RFS pages 2, 3, 4 and 6

Lithos Industries, LLC is a rare earth and critical materials extraction company based in Texas that has a pathway for extraction of these compounds from produced water.

Lithium is the primary targeted compound; however, we need to know if this process and end result is within scope of this RFS. Is fossil fuel waste-water seperation and mineral reclamation within scope for Topic 2 - 'Seperation Technology Capabilties'?

Fossil fuel waste-water is within the scope of the RFS.

The Government will assess the proposed efficiency of separation and yield of rare earth elements from chosen feedstock.

8 RFS section 5.4.1 bullet 1

Page 13 states that "the awarded vendor shall provide a demonstrated CSX REE separation shake flask test ". Can a definition or clarity be provided to help vendors understand what is meant by a 'shake flask test'?

The Shake Flask Test Method is a standard chemical processing procedure to separate elements. See attachment for shake flask method explanation.

9 RFS section 5.5

Page 15 states "The Government requires Government Purpose Rights (GPR) in all technical data (including computer software documentation) and computer software developed under any OT associated with this effort, for, at most, a five-year period.'.

Can any other categoryn os rights be negotiated (i.e. limited rights, SBIR rights, or restricted rights)? If not, will GPR pertain to data that is only a result of the OT, or for any and all data that the vendor brings to the contract? Please advise regarding GPR.

The GPR requirement identified in Section 5.5 Government Desired Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software, applies to all technical data (including computer software documentation) and computer software developed under any OT associated with this effort, for, at most, a five-year period. In this section, it is also required that the vendor provide a data rights assertion table, Attachment 2, The data rights assertion table shall identify at the lowest segregable level the technical data (including computer software documentation) and computer software to be developed or delivered under the OT, the vendor’s assertion as to the Government’s rights in each item of technical data (including computer software documentation) and computer software, the basis for such assertion, and the name of the person asserting any restrictions.

In addition, the following is stated "The five-year period, or such other period as may be negotiated, will commence upon execution of the OT that required development of the technical data (including computer software documentation) and computer software

Is a DoE national lab eligible to prime or sub to another entity for this effort? Please note, this prototype effort will be awarded under 10 USC §4022: Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects. Section (d) Appropriate Use of Authority, identifies the award requirements and eligbililty for a transaction for a prototype project, issued under this authority

11 RFS Page 5

Are there any restrictions on citizenship for involved personnel? In particular one of our potential Co-Pis at U Alaska is not a U.S. citizen. They are a legal resident (green card). Would that be an issue?

Please reference Section

5.1.4 Foreign Owned, Controlled or Influenced and any restrictions applicable to this project prior to the receipt of any award instrument.

12 RFS section 5, page 8

The RFS states that the vendor should provide a draft SOW in their proposal. Is this seperate from the POAM? If so, it is not listed in the proposal components table on page 8; should this be indluded as an appendix then?

Amendment 02 issued on December 09, 2022 removed the requirement for a DRAFT

SOW

RFS section 5.3 bullet 3 and section 5.3.1

Objective #3 for Topic 1 specifies West Virginia, while Requirement #1 states a list of feedstocks sources, including but not limited to West Virginia. Does the work need to include feedstocks from West Virginia or can we simply indentify possible future deployment options in West Virginia without having validated the specific tech on West Virginia derived feedstocks?

In addition, the following is stated "The five-year period, or such other period as may be negotiated, will commence upon execution of the OT that required development of the technical data (including computer software documentation) and computer software.

14 RFS Page 12

Will there be requiered monthly reports to DoD? It is a bit unclear whether those are only need for some months (Months 1, 4, 8, 12) or every month?

Monthly reports are required for the duration of the project to include the details listed in Section 5.3.2.1

RFS section 5.3.2.3 and section 5.4.2.3

Is budgeting for traveling to the Quarterly Review (if in person) an acceptable expense?

The Quarterly PMR are anticipated to be conducted at the awarding vendors facility in-person or virtual format

16 RFS section 5.3.2.5

For the final report, is there a minimum number of feedstock sources that must be tested? Requirement 1 lists several possible sources but states to use "any"

There is no specific requirement for the number of feedstock sources that must be tested. The final report must include details for each feedstock source used over the duration of the project.

17 RFS section 5.3.2.4 b

For 5.3.2.4.b "feasibility of bringing such technology to commercialized scale" are you looking for a techno-economic analysis? Evidence of conversations with larger industry partners for pilot projects? Evidence that the solution can process X amount of feedstock? Or is this left to the vendor to define?

The Vendor shall define its approach to achieve commercial scale production.

The Government will assess the approach based on its perceived ability to meet all other requirements listed in the RFS

RFS section Topic 1 first paragrah The wording in Topic 1 seems to indicate that a university should be the prime fo rthe submission. We just want to confirm that is correct

The Institute of Higher Education will function as the prime. The RFS does not require the Institute of Higher Education partner with Industry.

Assuming this proposal will be awarded through an OTA, which OTA consortium will this come out of?

The Rare Earth Element Initiatives Prototype Projects awards will be stand alone OTA agreements and will not be awarded through a consortium." This effort will be managed and awarded by The Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, & Instrumentation (PEO STRI) and Army Contracting Command (ACC) - Orlando.

To account for current and holiday travel demands, can the proposal deadline be extended until 31 JAN 2023?

Amendment 02 issued on December 09, 2022, extended the submission due date to January 17, 2023.

Are there specific technical readiness levels starting/ending for each topic area?

There are no specific TRL starting/ending points for this project. The Vendor is required to show an increase in TRL over the duration of the project.

RFS section Topic 2 second paragraph, section 3 and section

5.4.1 bullet 1

Are non-solvent extraction processes going to be seriously considered? What benchmarks are expected (e.g., comparable to the "shake test" mentioned)?

This RFS will consider alternative methods of separation and extraction other than liquid-liquid.

Vendors will be responsible for providing a comparison of the merits and benefits of their proposed alternative method, if not liquid-liquid.

Vendors will be responsible for providing a comparison of the merits and benefits of their proposed alternative method, if not using a shake-flask test.

23 RFS section 3 Special Requirements

Topic 2 Special Requirments indicates "doesn't not" exist", referring to the requirement for the primary being an institute of higher education. Please clarify, does Topic 2 require an institute of higher education as the primary, or can a business be the primary?

Amendment 02 issued on December 9, 2022 corrected this typo.

24 RFS section 5.5 Our process is proprietary, what GPR are expected? Can the data and process information be negotiated to be classified or non-disclosed?

Please review Section 5.5 and Attachments 2,3,4 for further information.

The company would be responsible for properly identifying all proprietary information per Govenment data marking provisions.

25 RFS section 5.1.4 What percentage of ownership by foreign investor(s) is deemed acceptable to not be considered a foreign-owned entity?

Generally ownership is a concern at 5% or higher, but may be a lesser amount in the aggregate with other factors, such as whether ownership is from a country of concern,or is a foreign government, etc as an example.

RFS section 5.4.1

RFS states that "the awarded vendor shall provide a demonstrated CSX REE separation shake flask test baseline rate(s) to the Government at the beginning of the project PoP that will be used to measure the vendor’s prototype separation efficiency rate against that at the end of the PoP." We will be running detail analyses throughout our process to demonstrate separation efficiency (before and after) using an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer; we propose that our database with XRF analyses serve this role instead of a shake flask test. An XRF output example is shown as tab "XRF Example" in this spreadsheet.

This RFS will consider alternative methods from the shake test to determine efficiency rate of separation.

Vendors will be responsible for providing a comparison of the merits and benefits of their proposed alternative method, if not using a shake-flask test.

27 RFS General info, Topic 2 Can we include reference letters in appendix to support proof of capability? Yes.

RFS section 2, Topic 2, Para 2

The scope of this prototype effort will focus on developing advancements in solvent extraction technology and separation process enhancement capabilities. Our process does not use solvent extraction (it will for future REO refining, but not for the extraction/ concentration phases) but does enhance separation capabilities. Is solvent extraction technology required / expected for this RFS?

This RFS will consider alternative methods of separation other than liquid-liqid. Vendors will be responsible for providing a comparison of the merits and benefits of their proposed alternative method, if not liquid-liquid.

RFS section 5.4.1 bullet 1 Under this RFS, can we measure "capability at a rate more efficient than CSX REE" using a comparison of XRF before and after?

This RFS will consider alternative methods from the shake test to determine efficiency rate of separation.

Vendors will be responsible for providing a comparison of the merits and benefits of their proposed alternative method, if not using a shake-flask test.

DFARS 252.217-7016, Topic 2

Per DFARS 252.217-7016 Plant Protection allows for costs associated with plant security. Can we add this cost as a change order after award and in coordination with CO and not as part of this proposal?

PLANT PROTECTION (DEC 1991)

(a) The Contractor shall provide, for the plant and work in process, reasonable safeguards against all hazards, including unauthorized entry, malicious mischief, theft, vandalism, and fire.

(b) The Contractor shall also provide whatever additional safeguards are necessary to protect the plant and work in process from espionage, sabotage, and enemy action.

(1) The Government shall reimburse the Contractor for that portion of the costs of the additional safeguards that is allocable to the contract in the same manner as if the Contracting Officer had issued a change order for the additional safeguards.

(2) The costs reimbursed shall not include any overhead allowance, unless the overhead is incident to the construction or installation of necessary security devices or equipment.

(c) Upon payment by the Government of the cost of any device or equipment required or ap proved under paragraph (b) of this clause, title shall vest in the Government.

(1) The Contractor shall comply with the instructions of the Contracting Officer concerning its identification and disposition.

(2) No such device or equipment shall become a fixture as a result of its being affixed to realty not owned by the Government.

Please note, this prototype effort will be awarded under 10 USC §4022: Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects using Other Transcation Autority (OTA) as the award time. OTA awards are not governed by the FAR/DFARS and Agency supplements.

Should a follow-on production acquisition be issued, it may be FAR type award which could include this DFARS clause or may be another OTA.

Refer to section 9 of the

RFS.

RFS section General info, Topic 2

We intend to build this in phases and we want to retain the plant facilities at the end of each phase. Where is proper place to put this discussion in the proposal? Technical Section, Subsection "Solution Paper'

RFS section General info, Topic 2

We have priced equipment and time to handle three source mines for building phase 1.

Can we get 20 tonnes of ore from Mountain Pass as one of them so we can do a direct comparison of the CSX process to the EGOR process and help the Government understand the gains in efficiency with our process?

The Government has no objection to this approach being proposed in the Vendors response to the

RFS.

RFS section 5.4.1 What are the specifics of the CSX test including solvent type, solvent/liquid ratio, shaking time, etc.?

Vendor must document testing process and show comparisons to standard acceptable criteria such as attached example as baseline.

RFS section 5.4.1

How do we compare kinetics between our chromatography process to a solvent extraction system? Can we simply compare mass REEs separated per time period such as kg-REEs/day?

The contractor shall identify a separation volume from the CSX Shake Test and a separation volume from their more efficient proposed process.

Vendor must document testing process and show comparisons to standard acceptable criteria such as attached example as baseline.

RFS section 5.4, section 5.4.1

Section 5.4 discusses creating capabilities for domestic processing facilities. However,

5.4.1 does not appear to require that the prototype facility be located in the United States. Would a prototype facility in an allied location be acceptable, provided that the end deployment goal for the demonstrated technology is in the United States?

Domestic locations for the purposes of this project include the United States and Canada. A proposal that provides plans for deployment in the United States will be considered without rejection.

RFS section2 / Topic 2 & Attachment

The goal of Topic 2 is to create a “sustainable domestic processing facility” and, per 5.4.2.4.d, create a commercially feasible capability. A commercially feasible facility will need to be able to compete on cost with other commercial rare earth providers worldwide for sales to commercial customers in addition to the Department of Defense.

Furthermore, a goal of OTAs is to encourage participation by nontraditional contractors, and most rare earth companies qualify as nontraditional contractors.

Nontraditional contractors, in general, do not have preexisting clearances.

Amendment 01 issued on November 23, 2022 removed language regarding classified material.

Furthermore, Amendment 02 issued December 09, 2022 Section 2 Summary and Background identifies the classification of this effort as

"UNCLASSIFIED."

36a

RFS Section 5.1.4 Does the government expect rare earth separators to regularly handle classified materials up to and including Special Access Program materials?

Amendment 01 issued on November 23, 2022 removed language regarding classified material.

Furthermore, Amendment 02 issued December 09, 2022 Section 2 Summary and Background identifies the classification of this effort as

"UNCLASSIFIED."

36b

RFS Section 5.1.4 Will the government pay for the added costs of acquiring facility and individual clearances to meet this requirement?

Amendment 01 issued on November 23, 2022 removed language regarding classified material.

Furthermore, Amendment 02 issued December 09, 2022 Section 2 Summary and Background identifies the classification of this effort as

"UNCLASSIFIED."

36c

RFS section 5.3.2.4, section 5.4.2.4, attachment 1

Will the government extend the deadlines listed in the statements of work (5.3.2.4 and 5.4.2.4) to allow for extensions in order to get clearances approved?

Amendment 01 issued on November 23, 2022 removed language regarding classified material.

Furthermore, Amendment 02 issued December 09, 2022 Section 2 Summary and Background identifies the classification of this effort as

"UNCLASSIFIED."

36d

RFS attchment 1

The typical timeline to receive certain certifications required by Attachment 1, Step 2, Paragraph C, exceed the amount of time from the issuance of the RFS to the required solution response date. Will the government modify the certification requirements such that proof of submittal is adequate to submit a solution (or other suitable adjustment)?

Amendment 01 issued on November 23, 2022 removed language regarding classified material.

Furthermore, Amendment 02 issued December 09, 2022 Section 2 Summary and Background identifies the classification of this effort as

"UNCLASSIFIED."

36e

RFS attchment 1 Does the government expect nontraditional contractors to maintain clearances once in commercial operation, given that defense demand will likely represent only a small portion of overall domestic demand for rare earths?

Amendment 01 issued on November 23, 2022 removed language regarding classified material.

Furthermore, Amendment 02 issued December 09, 2022 Section 2 Summary and Background identifies the classification of this effort as

"UNCLASSIFIED."

RFS section 2 / Topic 2

Section 2 requires awardees to demonstrate the “ability to acquire feedstocks rich in REE and Critical Minerals (CM) from domestic locations.” However, Topic 2 focuses on developing advancements in solvent extraction technology and separation process enhancement capabilities. Solvent extraction technologies require a mixed REE chemical concentrate as feedstock for their process, and there are no mixed REE chemical concentrates currently produced in the United States for commercial sale.

North American feedstocks should be allowable as well as allied partner countries

37a

RFS section 2 Topic 2

Can the government clarify that the intent of Topic 2 is to simply demonstrate advanced solvent extraction technologies and that any non-Chinese mixed rare earth chemical concentrate feedstock is acceptable, provided the demonstrated technology is capable of being deployed in the United States?

There are a variety of potential sources of domestic REE deposits that could be exploited to provide domestic feedstock (e.g., existing demonstration projects).

Novel approaches will be consider as this meets Requirement #1 "The ability to acquire feedstocks rich in REE and Critical Minerals (CM) from domestic locations."

RFSsection2 / Topic 2

The Fiscal Year 2022 defense appropriations bill provided money for the Industrial Base Analysis & Sustainment program to fund “rare earth separation technology” activities. Metallization and alloying are not considered “separation” by rare earth processors. Metal and alloy making, powderization and magnet making are all subsequent steps to the separation process. Furthermore, this seems to be outside the scope of the work specified in Section 2, Topic 2: REE Separation Technology Capabilities Prototype Project Background, i.e., “advancements in solvent extraction technology and separation process enhancement capabilities.”

"Outside scope" statement is believed to refer to the 2022 NDAA languange. The Government is addressing the NDAA intent in various ways throughout DoD.

38a

RFS section 5.4

Section 5.4 indicates that “heavy and light rare earth oxides” are considered “feedstock” for conversion to alloy for the purposes of this solicitation. 5.4 also indicates that a purpose of the solicitation is to demonstrate the ability to convert oxides to saleable metals. However, neither metal nor alloy production are listed in the requirements of 5.4.1, which is targeted at CSX-equivalent steps in the separation process. Can the government clarify that the intended output of the required tonnes prototype demonstration is simply the conventional output of an advanced SX system, in this case HREE and LREE purified chemical salts (e.g. carbonates, chlorides, or other salts)? Note: conversion to oxides is typically another follow-on step from the SX process utilizing a very well know industry process.

Material provided as an output of SX process should show significant purification from input material and would most beneficially be the input to a metallization process.

38b

RFS section 5.4 If oxides, metals or alloys are required, will the government consider increasing the scope and funding for the program?

The intent of the inclusion of metals and alloys is to ensure the product is eligible for use for downstream use in metallzation.

39 RFS section 5.4.2.4.d Section 5.4.2.4.d., which is part of Topic 2, requires the use of “AMD operations.” AMD operations are associated with Topic 1. Is this a requirement for Topic 2?

5.4.2.4 subset d has been removed.

RFSsection 5.1.4

Section 5.1.4. requires “vendors who want to participate at any level in support of this effort” to comply with the vendor vetting process. Does this apply to sub-vendors (and if so, which sub-vendors, feedstock suppliers, equipment suppliers, and service suppliers) or only to vendors acting as a Prime or designated Sub-recipient?

This applies to all sub-vendors to the prime.

41 RFS

Lithium would not naturally be considered in the above definition, but the element is named within the solicitation. Our firm considers Lithium to be a CM and not an REE. So, we are curious if REE and CM are meant to be interpreted broadly or interchangeably for this RFS?

The DoD recognizes REEs like neodymium, gadolinium, and praseodymium are critical to numerous defense and commercial applications .

Cobalt and Lithium have been removed.