With NNSA merging the contracts to run Pantex and Y-12 into one contractor, I really wonder why this is not done for LANL ($79 million max fee a yr) and LLNL ($53 million max a yr). The front company LLCs - LANS and LLNS - are basically the same people, but as separate contracts are getting over a combined $100 million to run both labs. The same thing UC did for $10 million a year. Where is the taxpayer outrage at this bilking of the US Treasury. I bet you could merge the two Lab contracts and set the combined fee at $60 million a year, and LANS/LLNS would still bid to run LANL and LLNL, saving $720 million over ten years.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Contract will cut Pantex costs
$875M savings would be spread among plants
By Jim McBride
Top National Nuclear Security Administration officials announced their contract acquisition strategy for Pantex and other facilities Friday and said the contract reforms would save an estimated $875 million over a decade.
Pantex, located about 17 miles northeast of Amarillo, assembles, dismantles and modifies nuclear weapons. The five-year contract for B&W Pantex, which manages and operates the plant for the federal government, will expire in September.
Under contract reforms announced Friday, the NNSA will conduct a bidding competition for a single contract to manage Tennessee's Y-12 National Security Complex, which produces uranium parts for warheads, and the Pantex Plant. The reforms also include a contract option to manage tritium operations performed at South Carolina's Savannah River Site...
..."Together, these moves demonstrate our commitment to be good stewards of taxpayers' money and we hope will enable NNSA to improve the efficiency of its operations," Harencak said. "Consolidating the management of multiple production sites under a single contractor will provide opportunities to improve performance while reducing costs."
Harencak said the contract changes will affect the management contract at Pantex and other weapons facilities, but he said that existing missions at those sites wouldn't change.
This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email firstname.lastname@example.org
- ► 2017 (320)
- ► 2016 (295)
- ► 2015 (330)
- ► 2014 (309)
- ► 2013 (431)
- ► 2012 (258)
- ► 2011 (162)
- New START seen permitting extra warhead deploymen...
- NNSA merging contracts
- Nuclear Labs Raise Doubts Over Viability of Arsena...
- View on 200 re-classification
- Opinion on blog moderation
- LANL TCP1
- Debate Heats Up Over Conventional, Nuclear Deterre...
- Trial of LLNS begins!
- Poll results
- Prove you have dependents
- Cost to Test U.S. Global-Strike Missile Could Reac...
- Concerns Over the Recent NIF Media Blitz
- NNSA Weapons Chief Participates in ROTC Day at Law...
- Pentagon Eyes More Than $800 Million for New Nucle...
- Share your story
- Managers! How do you feel about LLNS?
- Democratic senator challenges energy chief on Yucc...
- U.S. Missile Defenses Enhanced to Deal With Growin...
- What happened to the "future" institutional data c...
- ▼ March (19)
- ► 2009 (231)
- ► 2008 (374)