Good day, everyone, and welcome to the Perma-Fix First Quarter 2021 Conference Call. Please note that this call may be recorded. It is now my pleasure to turn today's program over to David Waldman, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Jasmine. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Perma-Fix Environmental Services first quarter 2021 conference call. On the call, with us this morning are Mark Duff, President and CEO; Dr. Lou Centofanti, Executive Vice President of Strategic Initiatives; and Ben Naccarato, Chief Financial Officer. The company issued a press release this morning containing first quarter 2021 financial results, which is also posted on the company's website. If you have any questions after the call or would like any additional information about the company, please contact Cresendo Communications at 212-671-1020. I'd also like to remind everyone that certain statements contained within this conference call may be deemed forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and include certain non-GAAP financial measures.

All right. Thanks, David, and good morning. As anticipated revenues in the first quarter were impacted by the ongoing effects of COVID-19, but I'd like to reiterate that we remain extremely encouraged by the long-term prospects for the company. Although certain segments of the economy was started to see a rebound as the pandemic has begun to subside, we are still feeling the impact, especially within our government business. Specifically, within our treatment segment, shipments have been temporarily delayed as the government has been focused on getting people back to work. But it's important to note, this business has not gone away. To the contrary, we expect the benefit from the government's fiscal 2020 carryover funds in addition to do 2021 allocations that have been pushed out and should help fund an acceleration of projects within the Treatment Segment, as well as the Services Segment. Within the Services Segment, we achieved modest growth in revenue, despite delays throughout the industry in evaluating bids and proposals and awards of procurements also due to the pandemic. Nevertheless, we began to see return to normalization. Overall, clearly, we're disappointed in the impacts these delays have had on our business, but we've continued to aggressively identify and pursue opportunities that align with our core competencies specifically in waste management and radiological remediation. In fact, as I've discussed in the past, our bidding pipeline is more robust than ever. We've been developing four to five simultaneous proposals at any given time throughout the first and second quarter by leveraging the technical and management talent that have joined our firm over the past two years. Our teams have been working around the clock on these bids and opportunities. In the past, we haven't had the resources to concurrently bid on this number in size of procurements considering the tremendous upfront resource required to evaluate and submit bids of the scale.

Thank you, Mark. I'll start with revenues. Our total revenue from continuing operations for the first quarter was $23.1 million compared to last year's first quarter of $24.9 million, a decrease of $1.7 million or 6.9%. The decrease in the revenue was entirely, as you mentioned, Mark, due to the drop in our revenue in our Treatment Segment totaling $2.1 million, as we continued to see the delays in the way shipments attributed to COVID 19 pandemic. This decrease was offset slightly by a small increase in our revenue in the service segment of $341,000 as our projects in California, Washington State and internationally in Canada, continued to operate exceeding prior year's revenue. Our costs of sales were $20.8 million for the first quarter, compared to $20.2 million last year, that's an increase of $557,000 or 2.7%. Our costs sold – goods sold were up modestly despite our drop in revenue. And this is due to a shift in our revenue mix. Lower treatment revenue did result in lower regulatory and material and supply expenses. Though, we had a shift in our revenue mix in our Service Segment, which resulted in higher subcontractor expenses and lower labor and travel.

And we will take our first question from Howard Brous . Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thank you for having me. Mark and Lou, hope that all of you and your families and the men and women of the organization are well and COVID-free. Is that hope realized?

It is. Look, Howard, we appreciate you calling in. Yes, everyone's doing well. We have no COVID cases in the company right now. So we've got most of it behind us. And many folks are vaccinated at this point. So we're starting to feel like we're coming out of it as a company. Thanks, Howard.

Really, great to hear that. There have been several press releases, particularly last week, regarding the leaking tanks at Hanford. Specifically, is the TBI program viewed as the potential solution to that problem?

At the time of question, Howard, DOE hasn't communicated their plans, their approach or any timing for addressing the newly discovered tank that we know of. The only information that's available is what we've seen and you probably have as well as other investors in the press. What I can say is that the Perma-Fix technology; our facility, which is fully permitted and our approach for low-level waste stabilization, coupled with the supporting retrieval and pretreatment systems that have already been designed and fabricated for the tanks, do represent near-term and safe option for removing and transferring and disposing of that lower waste from Hanford tank, specifically for the B-109 tank. While we haven't seen all of the analytical data yet for this specific tank, we have reviewed the data that's in the public domain, and it does look favorable for this exact application. And in other words, our technology can treat the waste from this tank for disposal quickly and at a significant cost savings to reduce the overall environmental risk and additional potential . In addition, the TBI program has been demonstrated also provides the opportunity to open up space in the double shell tanks so that they don't -- the -- we doesn't need to build another one. So overall, it is a potential solution, but we have not specifically talked to DOE about it yet.

The TBI option cost implement, what kind of numbers are we talking about, particularly compared to, say, the vitrification, which plant? I just assume it doesn't open for many, many years.

Yes. To move forward with our technology as a solution, we would first need the support of DOE and the State of Washington to make it happen. If we were able to establish a partnership with them to support near-term application, we estimate that the waste can be retrieved, pretreated to make low-level waste and that's done at the tank side during the extraction process. And then we could treat and stabilize the waste in Richland plant and dispose of it in Texas. And that would take -- from the point of contract initiation, it would take probably total 12 months to 18 months. So it's not a significant amount of time. Our estimate for doing all that for stabilization, transportation and permanent disposal in Texas would be in the range of about $200 a gallon. And that does not include the cost for retrieval or pretreatment. That's just for when we receive it until we get it into disposal in Texas. The press release mentioned that, that tank, the B-109 tank was approximately 123,000 gallons. So you can do the math there. But as far as what the Vit Plant or the DFLAW plant costs are in the past that's been published, that it's in excess of $1,000, $1,100 a gallon. So you can do the comparison. I'm not sure everything is included in that number. It's operation, if that's consideration of the construction costs or what really is included in that. But as far as we're concerned, it's about $200 a gallon. And this approach, as I said, would provide a permanent solution and will provide a lot of value as far as a faster application and would avoid further environmental risk.

So based on the numbers, which are quite obvious, why is the Department of Energy not moving forward with this alternative?

Howard, I can't speak for DOE. There's a lot of complicated considerations in regards to Hanford as a whole. Obviously, many, many that we're not sensitive to in the public or even in our business. So a lot of things are juggling, politics, funding priorities, existing strategies. So I really can't answer why it's not moving forward as an alternative. DOE is aware of our capabilities. They're very aware of TBI. They're funded -- funded through DOE. We have great relationships with the local office for DOE as well as headquarters. We talk to them frequently. So they are aware of the technology, aware of what it can do. So we remain on standby and offered to support DOE when the timing is right to implement what our technology has to offer and supplement the current strategy with DFLAW as well. So we have -- obviously have tremendous confidence in the solution. We've demonstrated that works in Phase 1 to the TBI program. And we've been doing this kind of work for 30 years. Howard, as you know, we just celebrated our 30 anniversary last month. And in addition, Howard also, I know you know this, too, is the National Academy of Sciences and other independent scientific groups have recognized grouting, which is the basic premise of our technology. They have recognized it as a viable solution and an alternative or a supplement to vitrification as a whole. So we're hopeful that DOE will evaluate this as an alternative. But right now, we haven't received any confirmation they want to move on anything, particularly associated with this new tank leak that's been in the press.

This is a new tank leak. The tanks have been leaking for years, as I understand it, is that a correct statement? This is not just -- this is just the last…

That is my understanding. Yes, this is not the first tank leak, that's for sure. And they'll continue to leak. And so yes, this is not anything new. It's just another data points from what I understand.

Mark, thank you. Ben, hope you do the best. Thank you again.

We will take our next question from Ryan Hamilton . Please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone. Could you touch a little bit on your backlog and maybe break out what's Services and Treatment?

Sure, Ryan. And Ben is located in Atlanta, so we're not sitting next to each other. But for the most part, our Services is just under $15 million, I believe, Ben, as we're sitting right now overall and closer to $7 million on the Treatment Segment. Is that right, Ben?

Yes. The number that I gave, Ryan, was just the Treatment backlog. And Mark's right, the Services backlog is about -- yes, about -- I think $14 million, $15 million range for Services.

And is that -- is your backlog pretty sticky as far as -- are those contracts cancelable or not? Kind of what are you seeing there?

No, they're not really cancelable necessarily for Services. They're finishing up projects. So in other words, we have a couple of projects in California that are ongoing, Canada as well as many smaller projects around the country. And those are going to continue to roll until they're done, until the projects are completed. So there will be limited changes associated with those overall, and that number should move much. It could always move some. We could finish some projects early. And sometimes the clients change the scope a little bit here and there. That could happen. But for the most part, they're pretty solid. And we're pretty comfortable with those through Q2 and into Q3 as well.

Sounds good.

And just -- and I'll add that the Treatment backlog is waste on hand. It's a true unearned number. So it's kind of we've already received the waste and it's awaiting processing.

Okay. I appreciate the color. Kind of along those lines to backlog completion and as business continues to expand and improve after COVID, are you seeing any other kind of constraints that may prohibit growth or get in the way of completion?

No. The only thing I guess I said, Ryan, it's a little -- one thing we didn't anticipate. We knew they were going to generate a lot of waste during COVID. Things just aren't happening. If you go to some of the sites, you talk to the sites, there's still very limited visitor access on site, let alone subcontractors. So there's just not a lot happening. It's starting to pick up now. DOE has got a plan for getting to full operations through the summer. I'm not sure exactly the details associated with that. But what really has been a surprise is how many bids haven't been awarded. And that's what we really counted on more awards, more task orders to be awarded now. But since they're not in the field, they don't want to mobilize the field. They're not there. So that's continued to be pushed out. They're piled up. They haven't been canceled. They haven't been awarded. In most cases, a few little ones here and there that have been. But for the most part, the bulk of these procurements are all waiting for the government and commercial organizations to make announcements. That's got to start happening soon. And I'm hoping before the next call, in three months, that we've got a number that we've been able to announce some wins and some backlog by the July time frame.

Sure. That's great. Could you touch a little bit as far as what you're seeing in the bidding environment? Are there larger numbers or better? Is it being driven by price or what you guys can actually complete at a certain time? Could you kind of touch on that just a little?

Yes, Ryan, that's a good question. On the Services side, typically four or five bidders on most of these, they're all different -- there's different teaming relationships, there's different skill requirement. We've been on several that have less than that, some that have more. So it's all over the place on the Services side of the house. As far as costing on the waste treatment side of the house, we have seen a slight reduction in cost. In other words, we've got to be more aggressive. Very little waste out there. We don't have a lot of competition there. There's really only two other alternatives, and that's -- you typically go directly in disposal. So we've seen a little pressure there, but only on a few waste streams overall. There's still some waste streams out there that have no place to go except to us, and we offer unique solutions for those. And we've maintained our pricing on that pretty flat overall. So yes, the competition is pretty much the same. I do think, compared to our competitors, we've been able to get more bids out. As I mentioned, we have a real machine for producing these proposals and integrating our technical staff from projects into the proposed development process. I'm really proud of our team. We work around the clock, as I mentioned, to weekends and nights for months, getting these bids put out. They're just now starting to slow down the next couple of weeks, but we expect task orders to start coming in through ID/IQ contracts in the next few weeks as well, which are much smaller, but faster turn and quicker starts. So that will support our summer and hopefully support the -- getting back to normal part of it as well. So just a little bit of difference in costing, not a significant amount overall.

That's great. COVID aside, are there any other issues regarding winning new business? Is there any kind of competitive disadvantage that you're seeing? I mean I wouldn't think that, but I just thought I'd ask.

No, nothing to really speak of, Ryan. Overall, I can't say there's any real change. One thing, too, Ryan, it's difficult to address that question because we haven't seen the awards yet. Like as I mentioned, we've been to a lot of bidding, but we haven't seen a lot of awards. So statistically, I can't say how we've done or how anyone else is doing relative to addressing your question. Certainly, by the next call, we'll have a good sense of how to answer that, that's for sure.

Yes. No, I'm excited to see the proceeds from all your hard work and the team. I guess, I just have one more. Could you maybe touch a little on the international business, what you're seeing as far as volumes there?

Yes. We're -- I think I probably mentioned that last quarter. We're really excited about the international opportunities. We received our first shipment -- well, actually, our first very large shipment from Europe in January, and we have more coming behind it. There's been some verification processes that are required for that type of work to verify procedures and provide QA/QC in regards to what we're doing. And that's all been worked out. Once that's all done, then the gates kind of open. So we expect to start seeing a couple of million a year as a baseline shipment from -- particularly specifically from Europe. And we also expect to see some from Mexico and continued shipments from Canada. So we see that market opening up for us. We have -- our incinerators are very unique up in Richland and they can handle and provide a really high value waste treatment services to Europe. And it's not this crazy and expensive as you might think to ship it there. So it works pretty well. And once we start to do more and more, I think that Europe is going to see that, hey, it's cheaper to ship it over there, treat it and then you have to send what you treat back as a -- including the residue and everything that has to go back over there. But it's in a stable form that they can store very cheaply and as volume reduced up to 90% or more. So it's -- there's a lot of value in it. And I think we'll start seeing that happen more and more with European clients as well once the word gets around that this is a viable option.

Sounds good. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.

We will take our next question from Chuck Dickinson . Please go ahead.

Good morning, guys. Could you also clarify for me, I've written down here. You said the intrinsic value of the plants, I guess that's four treatment facilities now with the EWOC, you thought because it'd be very difficult to replace would be something like $50 million each on average, is that correct?

Yes, Chuck, that's a really difficult estimate -- it's really difficult to estimate the value of those assets. We wanted to highlight that in this call that, that provides the foundation of our future and keeps us somewhat stable having those assets. It's nearly impossible to replace these plants, and it's very difficult to put a real specific asset value on each plant and the permits that go with the plant. The EWOC is not a $15 million plant at this point. We're going through a special lease-to-own arrangement with the former owner. We do have it permitted for radioactive materials processing and are pursuing other permits to give us more flexibility to support Oak Ridge in mercury processing specifically. But -- so it's not really at a $15 million replacement value yet compared to the other ones. The other ones are super robust with lots of different technologies and permits that let you do different types of things and give you the flexibility you need. And the systems are all there. EWOC has not quite that level yet as the other three.

So maybe rather than the dollar amount, it's more an academic exercise or an exercise in theory to say what, the time to take to build the plant, to get it permitted and approved, to have the patents and the technologies and technical personnel to do it, maybe just as important that how long it would take to do that is such a significant barrier to entry that you're talking about 5 to 10 years to even consider getting into this business. So it's really just a message saying, hey, this is a really difficult business to get into, and it's probably not going to happen.

That's exactly the message, Chuck, is the barrier to entry is very, very high, and it bodes well for the future of the company.

Okay. The allocation rollover from 2020 to 2021, the fiscal year, the government ends in September. So we're about three quarters of the way through 2021. With that money if it doesn't come into 2022, given what's going on with COVID, although you're starting to say, to see things picking up maybe by June, certainly in the summer, it looks better. Could that money from 2020 that does not roll in or if it does not roll into fiscal 2021, could it roll into fiscal 2022 and likewise, could any unspent money allocated for 2021 roll into 2022?

Yes, that's a good question, Chuck. Yes. You can typically -- and I'm not expert in this by any means, but certainly, the department can allocate their unspent money from 2020 through the rest of this year. Now what happens with the backlog or the excess in 2021, I assume it can work the same way, once they pass a budget and assuming they don't go into continued resolution, which complicates everything, they can spend that in 2021 as well. But yes, waste is backing up. For example, we're seeing very few shipments from the plateau contract in Hanford. And again, they were going through that transition up there. That's slowed down tremendously. And there's continued delays in Hanford shipments expected until another couple of months at least. And so that's going to hurt us. That's all backing up, and they'll make these shipments. We're confident they'll try to catch up for what they've missed. And if they do that, they'll start shipping significantly, and we’ll add double shifts if we need to, to keep up in third and fourth quarter. So we're kind of hoping for that. I am committed to it. And I can't commit to it either, but we're hopeful that once they start shipping again at Hanford, like they usually do, that will catch up along the way.

Yes. So as an investor, should I be focusing on the $7 million of treatment backlog? Or should I be focusing more on the sort of unstated backlog that's out there, that's not in hand necessarily, but that's been pushed to the right, I guess, if you want that expression?

It's difficult for me to answer, Chuck. I would say that the $7 million of backlog will keep us working and keep revenue go on generating and EBITDA generating through the quarter. It ensures that we've got revenue coming in at this point in time. We're typically about -- and we look about 3 months ahead overall. So for that $7 million of backlog that we should be burning through that in the next 3 months is what I'm saying. And yes, so if I was an investor looking at this kind of thing, I'd be trying to understand what the future is looking like in regards to waste generating and are the -- is the government getting back to work in the field to generate these waste that we process?

Okay. Last question you stated or Ben stated that the PPP loan remains unforgiven. Are you still in the process of trying to get that forgiven?

We are. We've -- our entire application for forgiveness was completed in October. As many of you know, they advertised 90 days to get the forgiveness done and we've heard nothing. We make attempts to find out information. The banks have seen a lot of smaller $2 million loans get forgiven, very few of the larger ones, although I have been hearing lately, a few bigger ones are starting to move. So it may just be a matter of they were more focused on doling out the new dollars and less on the forgiveness, but we're optimistic in the next 3 to 6 months, it will happen.

Okay. Thank you.

Jim, are you there? Your line is open.

Jim Godfrey. How are you doing today? Really excited for the additional color that you've provided today. Looking forward to the press release, as you referred to later on today regarding our new Board member, that certainly welcome to say the least, it sounds like it makes a lot of sense from many perspectives and that's a really solid professional to add to the Board. So that's wonderful. Yes, a couple other things that maybe even taking it a step further than you already have up at Hanford, there's been, of course, the overwhelming news of the leak less amplified, but I think equally important and wanted to get your color on April 27, the Office of Environmental Management put out the release, that Hanford moves a step closer to tank waste treatment. And to that extent, they're talking certainly about the TSCR platform. Is that really necessary if we're ever to get to large volume deliveries this -- at least this phase of that construction is finally completed? And how does that affect your vision as far as volumes potential going forward if things come in our direction?

Well, that's a great question, Jim. I mentioned in the talk, and I think I mentioned in the follow-up question from Howard, about the whole extraction process and the fact that we're really talking about treating low-level waste. But when they pump it out of the tank, it's actually pretty hard. It's much harder than usual and requires treatment when it comes out of the tank to remove the cesium and iodine from the waste, from the liquids that are coming out. And that's what we call the pretreatment. And that is actually done by what you refer to as a TSCR, what we refer to as a TSCR, which is the tank side cesium removal system. So that is a critical component to have that system fabricated, as I mentioned in the script, and up and running, and it is. They're using a similar system in Savannah River as well. It works very well. It's a great design, and it's a great system. The use of that system really tees up the ability of the Perma-Fix treatment approach to be able to handle this way. So in other words, you put that system into a tank and the waste that comes out of it is suitable for shipping over to our facility to treat and then send it to Texas. So it's a critical component that hasn't been there yet. And -- but it's the volume that it can pump, it can treat. And the ability for that to support our treatment program is one step closer to large volume transfer of waste to -- either to Perma-Fix or to the DFLAW plant as well and provides DOE with these alternatives. So it's an important step forward to get that fabricated installed and running.

Right. And then to the extent that you just mentioned the two ways that it can get shipped, there's really nobody else right now permitted in place approved if everything continues to obtain final permitting to treat the waste. We're really kind of in a unique situation here. Aren't we really about the only option that's really ready to go right now, should the decision be made to start treating some of this waste in larger scale, provide that we continue on with the successful demonstrations with the TBI?

Yes. I mean we are the only option outside of the plant. In other words, the DFLAW facility is the current strategy for DOE, and we stay behind them on that. So that process is to be up and running in December of 2023. We're a supplement to that. That plant will run from, what I understand, at about 1 million gallons a year. We can do that right away as well and expand to several million gallons a year. So we would supplement that. In case that doesn't operate on schedule or DOE views it as important to do to increase the volume of waste that they're retrieving and processing, we're right there for that. So we're -- we'd like to say that we're supplementing their current strategy for the 2023 time frame. But for this tank, my understanding is this tank would not go to DFLAW. The infrastructure is not in place to send it there. Again, I have verified that just from talking to friends on site. So that would make it even more of a prime candidate for a potential off-site treatment, because infrastructure to go to DFLAW for that where that tank is actually located is not in place at this point. So it would be a great option to send it to us if DOE saw that as a viable option.

Great. Great. And so we've also -- and we haven't touched on it yet. We have this interesting joint venture with Veolia and this new GeoMelt Vitrification System that we've -- I guess, we're awaiting final permitting now. And how does that affect things as far as the overall offerings that we're able to offer at that facility? And also, do you see expanded opportunities with Veolia to perhaps add additional GeoMelt facilities in our other facilities as we move forward?

Yes. GeoMelt, again, doesn't -- won't address the tank waste. So GeoMelt with Veolia is a great relationship. We're waiting for the permit through the state. Our General Manager and our Executive VP for Waste Operations are working very hard with the state and -- to get that through. And that basically starts out as a treatability study, which we've completed with the waste we've already run through there and try to get that permitted so we can start receiving more waste from -- specifically from Idaho, the sodium waste. So we are waiting for that to happen. We're hopeful that, that can happen before the end of the year. It has been delayed. It's difficult to get permits through the state. It takes a long time. And we're working with them on a regular basis, meeting with them monthly to try to push that through. We have talked to Veolia about other locations, other processes. That one is the closest to the permitting side. In other words, we -- since it's at our site where we have a permit, we've been able to do -- treat a good bit of waste through it, but we're kind of -- we're pretty much stuck until we get that approval from the state to be able to move forward.

Sure, sure. But of course, you wouldn't have went through all this great process unless you had some reasonable assurance that you'd be able to get it approved. It's still the -- just a bureaucratic credit process that you're working through. Is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

Yes, right. Right. Good. Good. Now I mean, turning to couple of other things here, and I don't want to take up all the time on your call, but one of them is -- another thing that hasn't come up, Board of Directors decided to not continue with, in effect, our poison pill. And just wondering, I know you probably have fielded many investors' concerns that we just don't like poison pills. Was that really just kind of an olive branch from the Board? It shouldn't be read into too much. We're not shopping the business or anything like that. But just wanted to give you this platform to kind of talk about that a little bit and you're really making great efforts to unlock the hidden value that's here. And this is kind of an olive branch again to extend that effort. Is that fair to say?

Well, Jim, yes, again, I wouldn't read too much into it either, but I will say this is that the poison pill was justified by the Board based on the conditions of the company at the time. And there's a lot of factors that went into that and a lot of considerations, a lot of thought that went into that. Those conditions have changed, and at least several of them have to the point where the Board looked at the need for the poison pill and recognize the fact that because his conditions changed, that was no longer justifiable and that they could not renew it. And I think it's -- yes, that's pretty much what happened with that.

Sure, sure. And I'll just finish up with two quick final points. One, you talked about the tremendous quality of the group of professionals that you've assembled to complement who is already there over the last two years. And I know on your website, there's several job openings. You're really confident here as far as your ability to attract and build this organization with engineers and physicists and some really deep, highly talented and industry experienced professionals. Where do you see that going? We're kind of seeing that we basically have the right mix of professionals in the organization now. And going forward, don't we have just a huge amount of capacity without really having to invest a whole heck of a lot in terms of CapEx in all of our facilities? They're ready to go, and the capacity is astronomical. The brain power is astronomical. And given the bidding that you're currently involved with, can you really come out and say that guys done it by 2022, that's going to mark a new paradigm in Perma-Fix and that our growth is going to continue, the right components are in place and we should be flowing a lot of profits right to the bottom line as these volumes get to this next paradigm of volumes for the company? And overall, it's extremely exciting. Do you kind of embrace that? And again, share those thoughts and maybe just kind of offer any other color that you might for what I just shared.

Yes, Jim, as an investor myself and the market, and I've spent a lot of time myself looking at stocks and things. And the thing I think that everyone always looks at is the leadership team. And if you've got a strong leadership team, you'll be able to get through the rough times and chart a vision for the future that is exciting and represents growth and growth of your stock. And that's really been where our focus has been in the last 3 years, is to attain that type of talent, integrate those guys and women into the management team and really chart out the innovation to line up with where the market is going, what types of waste is going to be generated, what type of fuel projects are going to come up. In our mind, it's -- that's largely got the radiological string to it. In other words, all of our projects, for the most part, have the rad component. So we've built an expertise around that rad component to do final releases, what we call free release of -- and license terminations for radiological facilities. And we really look at ourselves as a leader in that. We've done almost 100 now. Most companies have done very few as far as projects that have been released back to the public or back to private domain. And we really focused on that and -- because we see that happening constantly and those types of project conclusions becoming more and more necessary. We're bidding on two or three jobs right now that emphasize project closure. And so that's what we've been focused on. We have built our team around it. We've grown very well around it. It's really -- it sads -- sads me and the management team, that this COVID thing has put such a clamp on our momentum and have made difficult these two quarters, particularly as projects have ended and new ones haven't started, that we lost that moment for a bit. But we're really confident it's going to come back. We see -- looking at the project lists that are out there, that our clients have, that we talk to them about, there's plenty on the horizon. Once these task orders start coming through our ID/IQ, we'll see that momentum come back with the management team that we've got. So yes, we're really excited about that. If we didn't have that management team, I wouldn't have nearly the confidence I do that we're going to get there on both sectors being able to be flexible and resilient to get through this hiccup that we're in right now.

Great. The guidance that you've provided today is wonderful, Mark, and I can't think no, but especially you shared, I think, for the first time, kind of a couple of hundred bucks a gallon potential at Hanford and the ability to, if things go our way, create several million gallons annually. So you're really creating a vision for the company that currently is at $100 million in sales, call it. There's many hundreds of millions of dollars in sales potential as we look into the future with margins that are astronomically better than what we've ever experienced. So that's such a tremendous vision and I can't thank you enough for sharing that vision, and I wish you the best of success as you continue to execute and move towards those long-term objectives. And thank you for your time.

Great. Thanks, Jim.

It appears we have no further questions at this time. I will now turn the program back over to our presenters for any closing remarks.

All right. Thank you. I'd like to thank everyone for participating in our first quarter conference call. As mentioned earlier, we remain extremely bullish on the outlook for the full year. We appreciate the continued support of our shareholders and look forward to further updates as developments unfold. Thank you.

This does conclude today's program. Thank you for participation. You may disconnect your line.