At the direction of Congress, DOE seeks to establish a reliable supply chain for HALEU, including a domestic enrichment capability. DOE estimates that more than 40 metric tons of HALEU could be needed by the end of the decade, with additional HALEU required each year, to fuel a fleet of advanced reactors. The two RFPs are for HALEU enrichment services and deconversion and storage, as described below:

• Enrichment. The first solicitation, "Purchase of High-Assay-Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) Enrichment" (“Draft Enrichment RFP”) will be DOE’s planned acquisition of HALEU as uranium hexafluoride (“UF6”) (enriched up to <20% by weight in the isotope uranium-235). Incident to this planned acquisition of HALEU UF6, DOE would also require that the enricher store the HALEU UF6 at its U.S. facility.

• Deconversion. The second solicitation, "Purchase of High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) - Deconversion Services",(“Draft Deconversion RFP”) is being issued because, for HALEU UF6 deconversion services, the enriched UF6 must be deconverted to other forms, like oxide or metal, before it can be fabricated into HALEU fuel or put to other use. This solicitation will primarily be to acquire deconversion services but will also encompass transporting the UF6 stored at the enrichment facility to a deconversion facility, performing the deconversion process, and storing the deconverted material until there is a need to ship it to a fuel fabricator or other end user.

The RFPs will be issued by DOE’s Idaho Operations Office (“DOE-ID”). In advance of the RFPs, DOE-ID issued the draft RFPs for feedback, including on the goals, scope, and selection criteria, which it plans to use to inform the final RFPs, which it plans to issue later this year.

Any feedback prospective offerors would like DOE to consider prior to issuance of the final RFP, including on the above, should be submitted no later than July 6, 2023 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time via email to fryards@id.doe.go. We provide some additional background and detail on the RFPs below.

Background. For background on DOE’s goals for HALEU development, Section 2001(a) of the Energy Act of 2020 (42 U.S.C. 16281) directed the Secretary of Energy to establish and carry out a program to support the availability of HALEU for civilian domestic research, development, demonstration, and commercial use, including by acquiring HALEU for the purpose of selling or otherwise distributing it to members of a HALEU consortium. While advanced reactor technologies are currently under development, there is currently no domestic commercial source of HALEU available to fuel them. The lack of such a source could impede both the demonstration of these technologies being developed and the development of future advanced reactor technologies.

According to the draft RFPs, as a remedy, DOE intends to establish a HALEU Availability Program, which implements Section 2001 of the Energy Act of 2020, with the objective to support the availability of HALEU for civilian domestic research, development, demonstration, and commercial use. DOE seeks to engage with industry and stimulate the establishment of a reliable supply chain for HALEU for civilian and commercial use, including a domestic enrichment capability and a possible pathway for other DOE missions that have clear basic requirements but are not yet ready for implementation. The near-term success of the HALEU Availability Program could reduce the programmatic risk to meet uranium needs in the coming years.

Summary of RFPs. We provide a limited overview summary of the key terms of the two draft RFPs, and a summary of the feedback requested on each RFP, below.

Draft Enrichment RFP:

• Type of contract, objectives, and scope of work. The contact is to acquire HALEU under a firm fixed price contract, pursuant to a contract period, amount, price, and delivery date ser forth in the RFP. See Draft Enrichment RFP at B.3. The scope of work will include a first Contract Line-Item Number (“CLIN”), which will be firm fixed price. Subsequent option CLINS (“CLIN 2-8”) will be firm fixed price with an economic price adjustment, and are contingent upon the completion of CLIN 1. Id at B.1, C.4. DOE intends to acquire HALEU UF6 as soon as possible, enriched between 19.75% and less than 20%. Id. at C.3. Enrichment must occur in the continental United States. Id. Although DOE prefers mining/milling and conversion also to occur in the United States, DOE will consider other countries within or outside North America. DOE expects mines that have existing operational licenses to supply uranium oxide product for this RFP. While this RFP is expected to reinforce the resumption of conversion services domestically, it is recognized that new uranium conversion capacity may result. See Draft Enrichment RFP at C.4. DOE-ID contemplates awarding one or more contracts. This acquisition is a full and open competitive solicitation. Id. Additionally, DOE wishes to minimize the impacts to union jobs, non-union workforce, and other existing skilled workforce, while preventing adverse human, health, environmental, social, economic, and other impacts to communities that could be affected by HALEU production. DOE will require the submission of a Community Benefits Plan, describing the offeror’s actions taken to date and future plans to engage with Tribal governments and community stakeholders—such as labor unions, local governments, and community-based organizations. Id. at C.4., L-D.

• Period of performance and award of initial proposals. DOE intends to select and award one or multiple contracts without discussions, based upon an acceptable offer and initial proposals to the final RFP. Therefore, it is particularly important that each offeror provide its best feedback on the draft RFP. In the event that awards are not made on an initial offer and proposal, the Government shall establish a competitive range, and conduct discussions. The period of performance is anticipated to be approximately 10 years from time of award. See Draft Enrichment RFP at Cover Sheet and F.2.

• Proposal evaluation criteria. Technical proposals will be evaluated against the factors described under Criteria 1 through 4. See Draft Enrichment RFP at L.9. The technical proposal evaluation will result in the assignment of strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies for each criterion. For each technical proposal offered, an adjectival rating will be assigned based on the technical proposal evaluation and resulting strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies assigned for that criterion. Price proposals will be evaluated separately, as described under Criterion 5. These price proposals will not be assigned strengths, weaknesses or deficiencies, or receive an adjectival rating, but instead will be evaluated as described in Criterion 5 below. Id. at L.9.

• Criterion 1 – Capabilities and Experience. DOE will evaluate the depth and breadth of the offeror's capability and experience to successfully complete the HALEU production objectives as described in the scope of work, including evaluating the:

  • (1) Extent of current uranium production capabilities and experience; identify both domestic and non-domestic uranium supply chain capabilities and experience; (Note: Supply Chain capabilities which implement the following order of preference; Domestic, North America and other allies of the United States Government will receive a more favorable evaluation.)

  • (2) Extent of knowledge, capabilities, and experience with each of the following aspects of uranium production: (a) mining and milling; (b) uranium conversion; (c) uranium enrichment; (d) enriched uranium packaging and storage. Identify any experience and existing capabilities for any of these areas that are specific to uranium enrichments above 5%;

  • (3) Relevance of team and team member experience and capabilities (including workforce, equipment, and facilities) necessary to fully execute the scope of work;

  • (4) Extent and breadth of experience and capabilities necessary for obtaining and operating under U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) licenses and certifications for uranium production and storage operations (or applicable equivalent regulatory structures for experience and capabilities outside of the United States);

  • (5) Extent and breadth of experience with the design and implementation of uranium production facility upgrades and/or the design, construction and startup of new uranium production capability, including any specific to HALEU;

  • (6) Relevance and breadth of the education and experience of the proposed Key Personnel and their suitability for performing the work under this scope of work.

• Criterion 2 – Project Approach. DOE will evaluate the offeror’s Technical Proposal describing the proposed approach to successfully completing the work specified in the scope of work, including:

  • (1) Clarity, completeness, and realism of the approach that will successfully establish the necessary HALEU production capabilities to support the supply chain in the United States; (Note: Planned approaches which implement the following order of preference; Domestic, North America and other allies of the United States Government. will receive a more favorable evaluation.)

  • (2) Realism of the approach to the HALEU production to meet this scope of work without negatively impacting the existing baseline uranium production currently supplying the U.S. nuclear industry;

  • (3) Clarity, completeness, and realism of the proposed organizational structure and resource assignments, rationale for selecting team members and the assignment of specific uranium supply chain roles and responsibilities, and the extent of the commitment of these resources to the Project;

  • (4) Realism of the proposed approach for timely obtaining all necessary resources to complete the work identified in the scope of work on schedule;

  • (5) Clarity and realism of the overall project schedule. For any operations planned in foreign countries, DOE will evaluate the clarity and realism of the approach;

  • (6) Clarity and realism to the proposed approach for CLIN 1 permit applications, license applications, license modifications, etc.

  • For any operations planned in foreign countries, DOE will evaluate the clarity and realism of the approach:

  • (7) Clarity and realism to the approach for the HALEU production under CLINs 2-8.

  • (8) Clarity and realism to the proposed capabilities and approach to handle and load HALEU product for shipping from the storage facility when required in production phase.

  • (9) Clarity, completeness and realism of the offeror’s proposed Project Management Plan.

• Criterion 3 – Past Performance. Past performance reflects how well an offeror and its proposed team members did under relevant projects that are currently being performed or relevant projects that were previously performed within the last five (5) years from the original solicitation issuance date (including any relevant projects under contracts terminated prior to project completion). DOE will evaluate the currency and quality of past performance on projects, including:

  • (1) Technical, schedule and cost performance;

  • (2) Safety, environmental and regulatory compliance;

  • (3) Corrective actions taken during project performance; and

  • (4) Integrity and business ethics.

  • (5) Achieving small business utilization goals.

• Criterion 4 – Small Business Utilization. DOE will evaluate the offeror’s approach to meet or exceed the small business subcontracting requirement of 50% of the total contract value, including subcontracting of meaningful work scope.
• Criterion 5 – Price. The offeror's Price proposal will not be adjectivally rated or point scored, but will be considered in the overall evaluation of proposals in determining the best value to the Government. DOE will evaluate the offeror’s proposed price for reasonableness using the techniques identified in FAR Part 15.4. Total evaluated price consists of the following items:

  • a. The sum of the firm fixed price for CLIN 1 plus,

  • b. The average Fixed Unit Price/kg for CLINs 2-8 multiplied by the minimum quantity (25mt).

  • The total evaluated price will be determined by summing the total price for a and b above. This total evaluated price will be used in the determination of best value. Reasonableness. DOE anticipates that the existence of adequate price competition will support a determination of reasonableness.

• Solicited feedback requested. Prospective offerors are requested to submit feedback to the Draft RFP including responses to the specific topics listed below:
  • DOE intends to make commitments for purchases under this award within amounts provided by section 50173(a) of the Inflation Reduction Act, Pub. L. No. 117-169 (2022). If future appropriations become available, DOE will consider future work through the exercise of options depending on enriched uranium programmatic needs and other considerations. Does the noted language prevent an offeror from submitting a responsive proposal? If so, explain why? See Draft Enrichment RFP at Section B.3 and Section C.4.
  • Is there a different Producer Price Index more applicable to this Acquisition? Reference Draft Enrichment RFP at section B.4.
  • DOE’s overall uranium strategy covers a variety of enriched uranium programmatic needs, including civilian and commercial needs supported by the Office of Nuclear Energy and national security, nonproliferation, and defense needs supported by the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors programs. DOE’s HALEU Availability Program implements Section 2001 of the Energy Act of 2020, with the objective to support the availability of HALEU for civilian domestic research, development, demonstration, and commercial use. In this RFP, DOE seeks to engage with industry, and stimulate the establishment of a reliable supply chain for HALEU for civilian and commercial use, including a domestic enrichment capability and a possible pathway for other DOE missions that have clear basic requirements but are not yet ready (or sufficiently defined) for implementation. The near-term success of the HALEU Availability Program could reduce the programmatic risk to meet uranium needs in the coming years. Does this articulation of the Department’s desire to engage with industry to explore opportunities to leverage near-term solutions to meet longer term missions prevent an offeror from submitting a responsive proposal? If so, explain why? Reference Draft Enrichment RFP at Section C.2.
  • Offerors are required to submit a Community Benefits Plan (CBP) as detailed in Attach. L-D. Proposals submitted without a CBP will be considered nonresponsive and not evaluated further. Does this requirement prevent an offeror from submitting a responsive proposal? If so, explain why? Reference Draft Enrichment RFP at Sections C.3, L.8 and Attach. L-D.
  • Preferences and Considerations – Do the noted preferences and considerations prevent an offeror from submitting a responsive proposal? If so, explain why? Reference Draft Enrichment RFP at section C.4.
  • Does industry have a proposed contract type/pricing solution to facilitate storage of HALEU at the offerors facility during the period of performance of the contract? Reference Draft Enrichment RFP at Section H.20.
  • Does industry feel it would be beneficial for DOE to host a preproposal conference shortly after the release of the final RFP, prior to the date that proposals are due? Reference Draft Enrichment RFP at Section L.21.
  • Criterion 1 includes: Extent of current uranium production capabilities and experience; identify both domestic and non-domestic uranium supply chain capabilities and experience; (Note: Supply Chain capabilities which implement the following order of preference; Domestic, North America and other allies of the United States Government will receive a more favorable evaluation.) Criterion 2 includes: Clarity, completeness, and realism of the approach that will successfully establish the necessary HALEU production capabilities to support the supply chain in the United States; (Note: Planned approaches which implement the following order of preference; Domestic, North America and other allies of the United States Government. will receive a more favorable evaluation.) In this context “domestic supply chain capabilities” refers to U.S.-based labor, services, materials, equipment, and technologies. Do these stated evaluation preferences prevent an applicant from submitting a responsive proposal? If so, explain why. See Draft Enrichment RFP at M.2.
  • What should DOE consider including in the final RFP to ensure proposals address the degree to which resulting enrichment facilities can be leveraged in the future to support NNSA enriched uranium requirements for certain defense missions?

Draft Deconversion RFP:

• Scope of work. DOE aims to acquire deconversion services and other associated services, such as transportation and storage. This action, described in a Performance Work Statement (“PWS”) is primarily to acquire deconversion services within the continental U.S., but also encompasses transporting UF6 stored at the enrichment facility to a deconversion facility (if not co-located with the enrichment facility), performing the deconversion process, and storing the deconverted material until there is a need to ship it to a fuel fabricator or other end user (if not co-located with the deconversion facility). Given the overall goal of the action, scope under this contract may include, but is not limited to, the following types of work:
  • Coordinate, develop, and/or execute all aspects of transportation for HALEU from the enrichment site to the deconversion site in UF6 form including, but not limited to, the acquisition of shipping containers, route planning, route approvals, Department of Transportation permits, community engagement, emergency planning, scheduling, 8 real time monitoring, lifting and handling, qualifications, licensing, and shipping;
  • Provide planning, preparation, packaging, loading, and other support as necessary to transport oxide, metal, other forms of enriched uranium to a fuel fabricator (this does not include the actual transportation, which would be supported by a fuel fabricator or reactor developer);
  • Provide for temporary storage of HALEU in all forms;
  • Project management, integration, and other planning services for participants associated with the program, as identified by DOE;
  • Obtain NRC licenses, certifications, permits, and all other approvals necessary, including safeguards and security requirements;
  • Design, engineering, fabrication, and testing of facilities, equipment and supplies, including packaging for HALEU products;

  • Provide analysis and strategies for regulatory requirements;

  • Assist in the development of engineering data and environmental information needed for NEPA compliance;

  • Support DOE in interactions with all stakeholders, including Tribes, Federal agencies, states, local governments, and other public outreach programs;

  • System safety analyses and trade-off studies; perform technology trade-off studies to assess alternative solutions to problems related to the production and deconversion of HALEU;

  • Engineering/supportability studies; support engineering and supportability studies that may address storage, performance, configuration, process modeling and simulation, logistics and supportability issues.

• Anticipated contract date. DOE-ID contemplates awarding one or multiple Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (“IDIQ”) contract(s). Work performance will occur via issuance of task orders (“TOs”). Individual TOs will specify whether work is to be done on a Time & Materials (“T&M”), Cost Plus Fixed Fee (“CPFF”) and/or Firm Fixed Price (“FFP”) basis. This acquisition is a full and open competitive solicitation. See Draft Enrichment RFP at B.1, B.2.

• Period of performance and award of initial proposals. DOE intends to select and award one or multiple contracts without discussions, based upon an acceptable offer and initial proposals to the final RFP. Therefore, it is particularly important that each offeror provide its best feedback on this Draft RFP. The period of performance is anticipated to be approximately 10 years from time of award.

• Proposal evaluation criteria. The offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated on the degree to which its proposal demonstrates the offeror's understanding, capability, and approach that will allow the successful accomplishment of the performance of the work. The evaluation criteria are described as Criteria 1-5. Id. at L.7.

  • Criterion 1: Capabilities and Experience. DOE will evaluate the extent of the offeror's capability and experience to successfully complete the work as described in the PWS.

  • Criterion 2: Project Approach. DOE will evaluate the offeror's approach to successfully completing the technical aspects of the work described in the PWS.

  • Criterion 3: Sample Task Order 1 Proposal. The proposal for Sample Task Order 1 will be evaluated for approach to the work based on a demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the sample task order.

  • Criterion 4: Past Performance. The proposals will be evaluated on the offeror's discussion and demonstration of successful performance of past recent/relevant projects with respect to product delivery, quality, cost, and schedule, including providing acceptable customer service, proper management of subcontracted efforts, and demonstrated ability to identify/isolate the root causes of problems and successfully resolve those causes. Past performance of subcontractors and partnering companies may also be evaluated and DOE may use information from any source, in addition to information submitted by the offeror.

  • Criterion 5: Small Business Utilization. The proposal will be evaluated as to the Offeror’s approach to meet or exceed the small business subcontracting goals and the extent of proposed participation/utilization of Small Disadvantaged Business (“SDB”) firms, including whether the offeror’s approach will ensure SDBs are given a reasonable opportunity to participate in performing/supporting PWS requirements (if applicable).

  • Price. The offeror's Price proposal will not be adjectivally rated or point scored but will be considered in the overall evaluation of proposals in determining the best value to DOE.

• Solicited feedback requested. Prospective offerors are requested to submit feedback to the Draft RFP including responses to the specific topics listed below:

  • DOE intends to make commitments for purchases under this award and the enrichment acquisition within amounts provided by section 50173(a) of the Inflation Reduction Act, Pub. L. No. 117- 169 (2022). If future appropriations become available, DOE will consider future task orders depending on enriched uranium programmatic needs and other considerations. Does the noted language prevent an offeror from submitting a responsive proposal? If so, explain why? Reference Draft Deconversion RFP at Section B.7.

  • Deconversion services and subsequent storage must occur in a physical location within the continental United States. Does this requirement prevent an offeror from submitting a responsive proposal? If so, explain why? Reference Draft Deconversion RFP at C.1.

  • DOE’s overall uranium strategy covers a variety of enriched uranium programmatic needs, including civilian and commercial needs supported by the Office of Nuclear Energy and national security, nonproliferation, and defense needs supported by the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors programs. DOE’s High‑Assay Low ‑Enriched Uranium (HALEU) Availability Program implements Section 2001 of the Energy Act of 2020 (42 U.S.C. 16281), with the objective to support the availability of HALEU for civilian domestic research, development, demonstration, and commercial use. DOE seeks to engage with industry and stimulate the establishment of a reliable supply chain for HALEU for civilian and commercial use, including a domestic deconversion capability and a possible pathway for other DOE missions that have clear basic requirements but are not yet ready for implementation. Does this articulation of the Department’s desire to engage with industry to explore opportunities to leverage near term solutions to meet longer term missions prevent an offeror from submitting a responsive proposal? If so, explain why? What should DOE consider including in the final RFP to ensure proposals address the degree to which resulting facilities can be leveraged in the future to support NNSA enriched uranium requirements for certain defense missions? Reference Draft Deconversion RFP at Section C.3.

  • Offerors are required to submit a Community Benefits Plan (CBP) as detailed in Attach. L-E. Proposals submitted without a CBP will be considered nonresponsive and not evaluated further. Does this requirement prevent an offeror from submitting a responsive proposal? If so, explain why? Reference Draft Deconversion RFP at Sections C.4, L.5 and Attach. L-D.

  • Does industry feel it would be beneficial for DOE to host a preproposal conference shortly after the release of the final RFP, prior to the date that proposals are due?