Anonymously contributed:
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.
http://www.amarillo.com/stories
/032710/new_news3.shtml
7 comments:
...contract reforms would save an estimated $875 million over a decade.
roflol :)
believing this change will save $$$ is like believing in the tooth fairy.
I promise - if you'll make my portion of the pie larger, I'll save you money. ??? huh!
The combined Y-12/Pantex contract is being set up in a "special" manner for the Bechtel Boys to take it over.
Since Bechtel already runs both Livermore and Los Alamos (via LLNS and LANS), there is no need to make a special contract that combines both NNSA labs. The "fix" is already in on that one, right Tom D'Agostino?
NNSA is also moving all the weapon complex construction project work to a single contractor.
Wanna bet that Bechtel will also pick up that contract, too?
Merge, Condense, Concentrate.
End result: Implosion
Any of this stuff below sound familiar from a few years back when the LLCs took over the NNSA labs?...
===========
Munger: Y-12 contract talk irks Oak Ridge labor chief
Knoxville News, April 7th, 2010
The National Nuclear Security Administration hasn't released its official "request for proposals" for the planned consolidation of management contracts for the Y-12 and Pantex nuclear weapons plants, but some of the government's early statements have already upset some folks.
"I'm not happy about it," Garry Whitley, president of the Atomic Trades and Labor Council in Oak Ridge, said of the NNSA's summary of plans for the new contract.
Whitley strongly objected to language that doesn't seem to protect incumbent workers at the plants.
"I think they're being short-sighted. You've got a safe, well-trained work force. I don't know why, if you're the government, why you wouldn't want that work force to stay intact," Whitley said.
He also objected to language that would allow changes in worker benefits.
Here's an excerpt from a summary document about the Y-12/Pantex document that's posted on the NNSA's Web site:
"The solicitation will provide offerors with maximum flexibility in terms of their approach to achieving efficiencies. The successor contractor will have the flexibility to restructure its work force, for example, the solicitation will not contain a provision requiring the hiring of all incumbent employees. Also, the successor contractor will not be restricted from making changes to employee benefits."
The NNSA has estimated that the contracts merger, including the possible merger of tritium operations at Savannah River in South Carolina, could save $895 million over a 10-year period.
Whitley wasn't impressed. "You could save more money than that in production improvements," he said.
===========
www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/
apr/07/y-12-contract-talk-
irks-oak-ridge-labor-chief/
"He also objected to language that would allow changes in worker benefits." (Knoxville News)
Don't worry - NNSA will give you the ol' "substantially equivalent" motto to lull you into quiet acceptance. Hey, it work out at LANL and LLNL!
Post a Comment