Meeting — Jan. 23, 2024

The GSA Acquisition Policy Federal Advisory Industry Partnerships Subcommittee convened for a public meeting at 3:00 PM on January 23, 2024, virtually via Zoom, with Kristin Seaver, Chair, and Farad Ali, Co—Chair, presiding.

In accordance with FACA, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App 2, the meeting was open to the public from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM EST.

Meeting agenda

Allotted Time	Topic	Presenter(s)
3:00 PM - 3:05 PM	Call to Order Roll Call and Quorum	Boris Arratia, Designated Federal Officer
3:05 PM - 3:10 PM	Introductory Remarks Opening Statement	Kristin Seaver, Chair Farad Ali, Co-Chair
3:10 PM - 4:10 PM	Guest Speaker	Devon Fanfair, Co-Founder, Devland
4:10 PM - 4:45 PM	Forward Focus for Prioritization of May 2024 Recommendations	Subcommittee Members
4:45 PM - 4:55 PM	Public Comments	Public Participants
4:55 PM - 5:00 PM	Closing Remarks Summary Next Steps Adjourn	Kristin Seaver, Chair Farad Ali, Co-Chair Boris Arratia, Designated Federal Officer

Committee Members Present:

Kristin Seaver, Chairman — General Dynamics Information Technology
Farad Ali, Co—Chair — Asociar LLC
Stacy Smedly — Building Transparency
Nigel Stephens — U.S. Black Chambers of Commerce
David Wagger — Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries

Absent: Denise Bailey, Gail Bassette, Susan Lorenz—Fisher, Mamie Mallory, Deryl McKissack, Keith Tillage, Kimberly Wise White

Guest Speakers & Presenters:

Devon Fanfair — Co—Founder, DEVLAND

GSA Staff Present:

Boris Arratia — Designated Federal Officer
David Cochennic — GAP FAC Support
Skylar Holloway — GAP FAC Support
Heather Easterly — Closed Captioner
Joel Duggan — ASL Interpreter
Heidi Cooke — ASL Interpreter

Call to order

Boris Arratia, Designated Federal Officer, opened the public meeting by welcoming the group before reminding the public that there will be time for comments and statements at the end of the meeting. Roll call was performed before the meeting was turned over to Co—Chair Farad Ali.

Welcome and opening remarks

Co—Chair Farad Ali extended a warm welcome to everyone in attendance at the meeting, expressing gratitude for their participation. He provided context by highlighting the team’s recent focus on preparing materials for the administrator and expressed enthusiasm about the positive direction of their efforts.

Moving forward, Farad emphasized the importance of introducing opportunities identified in collaboration with industry partners to propel their work. He specifically mentioned the close collaboration with the subcommittee, led by Nigel, which has been dedicated to understanding the challenges faced by small and diverse suppliers in accessing networking opportunities.

Boris Arratia gave the speakers a brief overview of the GAP FAC and their mission, before Nigel Stephens introduced the speaker for today.

Nigel Stephens introduced a company called Material, represented by speaker Devon Fanfair, as a prime example of a small, innovative firm with capabilities aligning with the committee’s goals. Material’s offerings, spanning innovation, manufacturing, and technology, were seen as integral to driving climate change and sustainability efforts across various industries. Nigel expressed eagerness to broaden the discussion, involving more industries, and saw the presentation by Material as an excellent opportunity to hear from an innovative firm operating outside the traditional beltway. The floor was then handed over to Material’s team for their presentation.

Guest speakers discussion

Devon Fanfair, presented their expertise in 3D printing energy storage systems to address challenges in battery production. He highlighted the urgency emphasized by Abigail Ross Hopper, CEO of the International Trade Commissions, regarding the need for the U.S. to lead the global clean energy transition and improve grid reliability. The focus was on expanding domestic production and deploying lithium—ion battery energy storage technology to reduce reliance on imports and enhance energy security.

Material identifies the current challenges in battery manufacturing, emphasizing the linear relationship between the cash invested and limiting factors that hinder true innovation. A solution was proposed by showcasing Material’s capability to 3D print batteries in any shape or size, allowing for an exponential scale without exponentially increasing resources. This approach aims to eliminate upfront costs, improve battery power by up to 300%, and reduce the carbon footprint by 50% through a streamlined fabrication process.

Devon highlighted the significance of designing batteries around human and functional needs rather than conforming to traditional shapes and sizes. The potential applications included extended drone flight times and smart suits where the battery adapts to the suit’s design. The Material team expressed their commitment to 3D printing energy storage systems for enhanced battery capacity and diverse form factors. Christopher Reyes, Co—Founder and Chief Technology Officer of Materials, delved into the high—level technical aspects of their innovative 3D printing process.

Chris shared his role as the first person to demonstrate the capability of completely 3D printing using a lithium—ion battery. His initial work involved using off—the—shelf components to develop this technology in a cost—effective and efficient manner. Over the last seven years, he has further refined the first—generation product to align with specific target points.

Material’s unique approach involves 3D printing lithium—ion batteries, encompassing the anode, cathode, and separator in a single print. Traditional lithium—ion battery fabrication involves numerous steps and large machinery, which Material aims to reduce by half with their custom 3D printer. Chris emphasized the elimination of metal current collectors and the use of custom composites, reducing the battery’s volume by 15% and enabling 3D printing in various shapes.

The presentation included visuals of Material’s beta printer, highlighting the potential for scalability and a significant reduction in square footage, leading to a reduced carbon footprint. Chris showcased an image of an actual battery being printed, emphasizing their achievement in producing a rechargeable lithium—ion battery through 3D printing. The team is working on refining the printer for higher—quality prints.

Chris handed over to Devon to elaborate on Material’s market entry strategy and various components they can explore.

Devon expressed the vast opportunities for Material, highlighting their current roadmap that is adaptable based on customer needs. Immediate launch areas include motorsports, specialty automotives, and potentially satellite applications. In the short term, they aim to enter automotive, aerospace, and consumer electronics, addressing the growing demand for battery capacity in emerging technologies. Long—term opportunities include transportation, mining, and drilling. Devon emphasized the low carbon footprint of their approach, leveraging a print farm instead of large factories.

The team is currently on track with their roadmap, having closed their pre—seed round and raised a significant amount. They are working towards their seed round, focusing on solidifying manufacturing capabilities for customer adoption. Devon mentioned ongoing discussions with potential customers and highlighted the achievable U.S. market, estimated at $60 billion. The team is optimistic about the next 6 to 12 months and the milestones they are well—positioned to achieve.

Chris mentioned the landscape of players in the field exploring diverse form factors and fabrication methods for lithium—ion batteries. He noted that SAKUU, initially a leader, shifted its focus from 3D printing solid—state batteries due to existing technological challenges. Other players, such as Photo centric and Black Stone Resource Group, are also navigating the complexities of battery fabrication. Chris emphasized Material’s uniqueness, being capable of fully 3D printing batteries and deploying them in various environments, offering scalability advantages.

Material has received successful fundraising efforts, securing $750,000 from angel investors, HAX SOSV, and $275,000 from Pathbreaker VC. The team is hitting milestones on their strategic roadmap, with potential market entry into sectors like motor sports, aerospace, and consumer electronics.

Speaker questions and answers

Q: Farad Ali — What is your value proposition for supporting the growth and development of 3D—printed batteries in the government? Additionally, what is the specific use case that addresses both inclusion and provides value in terms of green energy, cost savings, and adherence to sustainability models?

A: Miles Dotson — We are entering a phase comparable to the evolution of transistor chips, where power and energy are crucial for developing new governmental use cases. Various hardware and systems integral to daily operations are increasingly reliant on energy storage. The unique methodology and process employed by Material enable the creation of novel energy sources that wouldn’t be possible without this technology.

Q: Nigel Stephens — Can you elaborate on the adaptability of your manufacturing facilities? Specifically, how can you ensure regional diversity and resilience in the supply chain, considering factors like natural disasters?

A: Chris Reyes — Our vision is to make our printer completely modular, allowing deployment in various locations, such as universities, and ensuring the ability to swiftly relocate in response to natural disasters or disruptions. We’re conscious of supply chain sustainability, and although currently, there’s a global supply chain, our system is designed to be flexible. For instance, we are chemistry agnostic, enabling us to explore and switch to different battery materials available locally. We’re even considering technologies like silicon anode or sodium and potassium ion batteries, depending on regional availability. This approach ensures adaptability and resilience in different scenarios.

Q: Boris Arratia — Have you encountered challenges in engaging with the federal government? What insights can you share about attracting enterprises like yours to the federal marketplace?

A: Miles Dotson — In my experience as a three—time venture—backed founder of seven companies, interfacing with the government has been challenging. The process often involves significant preparation and qualification before any review takes place. To enhance visibility for innovative organizations like ours, it would be beneficial to have some avenue for pre—review status, allowing us to be seen before completing extensive paperwork. The current process can create blind spots for technologies that could be of high value to the government. On the private side, funding has often come through connections that bypass some of these hurdles. A more functional, visible, and communicative waiting room aspect for opportunities could facilitate a greater interface with the relevant parties and help us understand potential pathways forward with initiatives like what we’re working on at Material.

Q: Kristin Seaver — When you used the phrase “energy storage as a source,” what industries, particularly legacy ones do you see that disrupting?

A: Chris Reyes — We mean providing power without constraints. Our technology has the potential to disrupt any industry reliant on rechargeable batteries. We offer three key advantages: the ability to add capacity without increasing volume, the flexibility to enhance existing products with extra batteries, and the liberation to design devices without being constrained by traditional battery shapes. This disruption spans various sectors, from walkie talkies to VR headsets and drones, where unlocking aerodynamic shapes can significantly impact performance and design.

Q: Stacey Smedley — In the context of startups seeking funding, especially in the construction sector, how valuable would a pre—approval or waiting room status with the government, like GSA expressing interest, be for attracting investors and scaling?

A: Devon Fanfair — Having pre—approval or acknowledgment of interest from government entities like GSA would be extremely valuable for us in fundraising. It provides a level of confidence to investors, especially during uncertain political or economic periods, facilitating continued support for our endeavors.

A: Miles Dotson — In areas of advanced hardware technology, where understanding and fluency might take time, a government relations angle becomes crucial. It helps demonstrate various future use cases, especially those that may not materialize for 7 to 15 years. This is particularly significant during market off—cycles, ensuring that innovation isn’t stifled due to temporary fluctuations in funding or investment activity. It enables us to compete globally by maintaining an unconstrained position for rapid innovation.

Q: Nigel Stephens — In projecting the trajectory of the battery manufacturing industry, especially in terms of reduced costs, how do you see this evolving, considering potential applications in healthcare and medical devices? Specifically, how could this impact government investments, including those from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) or Department of Defense (DoD)?

A: Miles Dotson — When considering cost reduction, it’s essential to view it as a dynamic process rather than a static component. The reduced costs we’re achieving are being redirected forward into scalability and efficiency. Our modular approach, akin to a Xerox printer, enables us to produce batteries more efficiently. Instead of an overall reduction, it’s more about transferring costs to achieve greater efficiency and faster outcomes, particularly applicable in various sectors, including healthcare and medical devices. This approach aligns with the evolving needs of industries, allowing for more responsible and efficient spending.

Q: Nigel Stephens — Considering environmental impact, especially in terms of waste products from batteries, what plans do you have for recycling and managing the end—of—life phase for batteries?

A: Miles Dotson — Our current approach reduces about 30% of packaging components and materials used in battery manufacturing. We see our printers as capable of printing hybrid metals, with batteries being one application of this variety.

A: Chris Reyes — This approach allows for using 20—30% less material. In terms of battery waste, we are exploring chemical recovery methods for rare materials in collaboration with researchers at Rice University. We also use case materials that can be recycled. Being chemistry agnostic, we can incorporate recycled materials in our process, providing flexibility in sourcing while considering the micro shape constraints. Recycling is a key aspect of our approach.

Q: David Wagger — In terms of sustainability, especially from a recycling perspective, what considerations do you have for the end—of—life phase of your device, particularly regarding the challenges in extracting the battery without compromising the integrity of the rest of the device?

A: Chris Reyes — Short term, once the device reaches end of life, it comes back to us. We are working on capabilities to print the case, making it as simple as unscrewing and replacing the case. While there are design challenges, we aim to control the lifecycle of our battery, ensuring its return for investigation and recycling.

A: Miles Dotson — Recycling and the backward process of returning and retrofitting devices can open the door to an industrialized recycling regimen in the U.S. We currently lack commercialized technology for rapid use cycles and returning parts to their industrial pattern. If we can achieve this at scale, it would contribute significantly to sustainability, recycling, and reusing materials in the manufacturing process.

Q: Kristin Seaver — What is your go—to—market strategy? Do you envision integrating with other technologies, like walkie talkies or drones, or mass—producing batteries for universal use?

A: Miles Dotson — Our entry route involves augmenting conventional use cases. For example, in battery electric vehicles, we can supply batteries to fit in unconventional spaces, beyond the cylindrical battery format. Our 3D printer allows us to manipulate materials and serve unique use cases that traditional manufacturing can’t meet due to limitations in geometries and form factors. We aim to create a step change in the evolution of embedded electronics manufacturing, making the design of battery implementation the last component in device creation.

Q: Kristin Seaver — How can the government connect with companies like yours, considering traditional channels might not align with the startup culture? Are there specific networking groups or consortiums that government entities should explore?

A: Miles Dotson — The evolution in venture capital since 2007 — 2008 has shifted towards constant visibility into opportunities, moving away from cyclical patterns. The challenge is that government processes are often company—focused, missing out on early—stage activities before formalization. Silicon Valley and the startup industry focus on human connections, and the government may benefit from adapting to more agile and human—centric approaches to gain visibility at the earliest stages of innovation.

Q: Kristin Seaver — Considering the urgency of climate and sustainability issues, how can we expedite connections between government entities and innovative startups, especially within Silicon Valley and venture capital channels?

A: Miles Dotson — Creating an open channel for individuals to propose and self—identify their innovative work could expedite connections. The current hurdles for accessing non—diluted funding can be daunting, and a more agile approach, possibly involving policy changes at the institutional level, may facilitate quicker exposure and opportunities for startups. Additionally, addressing policies around ownership of innovations created on campuses could provide students with more visibility and opportunities.

A: Devon: How can we address the challenges faced by students on campuses, where innovations created often become university property, limiting visibility and opportunities? Also, given the limited capacity of global accelerators, how can we better connect startups, especially those focused on specific sectors like climate and energy, with accelerators to build more relationships and opportunities?

Kristin mentioned the subcommittee could explore a detailed examination of a network of accelerators, specifically those concentrated on climate goals. Within the GSA’s initiatives, we could emphasize collaborations with these accelerators, acting as network nodes that extend our reach into the entrepreneurial community. This approach might prove more effective than direct government outreach to entrepreneurs, minimizing potential hit—or—miss scenarios.

Q: Boris Arratia — What are your views on partnering with existing vendors, such as automotive companies, to foster collaboration between large established firms and innovators like yourselves?

A: Miles Dotson — Existing relationships offer opportunities for large organizations to create sub—partnerships based on their specialties. However, there’s a trust issue where innovations from smaller companies might be suffocated in the process if they lack revenue and modernization outcomes. Unbundling considerations are needed to better support innovation.

A: Devon Fanfair — A potential approach is to designate companies as GAP FAC approved, showcasing their achievements and facilitating partnerships with larger organizations. Publicly traded companies often focus on acquisition rather than innovation. Creating exposure and sharing resources could lead to mutually beneficial collaborations.

Review key takeaways from guest speaker

The group took time to capture insights from the presented information from Material.

• “Cost transfer” concept is key to evaluating new ideas.
• The concept of cost repositioned for future value is a major mindset shift and probably exciting how we need to be thinking about climate risk.
• Just connecting a company like this with the development they are doing with the government will most likely create use cases not yet known?
• The idea of a “waiting room” is fascinating.
• There should be a “pool” of innovative businesses that are identified by the federal government that are in pre IPO/VC phase so they can be developed for future participation.
• Innovators may exist in their own ecosystems, beyond governments view.
• Finding innovators needs to be people—centric, rather than company centric.
• How can GSA gain knowledge of early stage innovations to vet them and support early procurement and piloting of their technologies (helps them secure funding to scale).
• Companies like us are unseen and can exist in a blind spot. Any effort to connect with the government to be seen and to remove constraints will be helpful. It was clear this was a unique opportunity for them to speak directly to a government agency/committee. How do we make that more of a norm?
• The formalities of government contracting gets in the way of innovator entry into the federal marketplace.
• Should the government learn more from the venture capital model?
• Time and money is the lifeblood of these companies. Government cycles can starve them out of consideration.
• Government should create pipes into the accelerator community and also consider those open channels for companies to self identify. Have access to funding without the traditional constraints.
• University R&D accelerators need to connect somehow to the GSA Challenge.gov.
• Plug in/bridge R1 and R2 funding?
• How best to partner with accelerators?
• Partnering with research institutes is key in promoting innovations.
• Partnering with large businesses could bring the challenge of focus: acquire vs. innovate.
• Government and large businesses don’t think on the same terms — raising funds vs. maximizing shareholder value — scale vs. innovation.
• Interesting perspective on partnering with the large. Suffocate innovation business model shifts must occur.
• Innovators may need to find large scale use cases for their products.

Forward focus for prioritization of May 2024 recommendations

The subcommittee moved to discuss the focus for their final recommendation before May. Options include exploring partnerships between large and small suppliers in the context of climate and sustainability or delving into data—related aspects. They consider the concept of a “waiting room” as a first step for innovators to engage with the government. The discussion leans towards narrowing down and deepening the focus on the waiting room concept, identifying it as a potential strategy for tapping into innovative ideas.

A voting process is put in place, and the subcommittee leans towards exploring the waiting room concept as a more manageable and focused approach. The possibility of a follow—up meeting is discussed to finalize the decision. Overall, the meeting is viewed positively, with engaging discussions and appreciation for the input from participants.

Public comments

The subcommittee opened the discussion to the public however there were no comments or questions.

Closing remarks

Kristin thanked the committee members for their active participation and for bringing today’s speakers to the meeting.

Boris adjourned the meeting at 5:00 P.M. ET.

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.

Digitally signed by Kristin Seaver 3/25/2024
Kristin Seaver
Chairperson
GAP FAC Industry Partnerships Subcommittee

Digitally signed by Farad Ali 3/19/2024
Farad Ali
Co—Chairperson
GAP FAC Industry Partnerships Subcommittee