BLOG purpose

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


  • Stay on topic.
  • No foul, vulgar, or inflammatory language.
  • No name calling.
  • No personal attacks or put-downs of other blog users.
  • Be patient. Moderator checks and approves new posts several times a day.

Suggest new topics here


Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...

Monday, May 13, 2013

GAO Releases More Details on Contested Y-12/Pantex Contract

GAO Releases More Details on Contested Y-12/Pantex Contract

Nuclear Street News Team
Mon, May 13 2013 6:25 AM

Questionable procurement decisions at the National Nuclear Security Administration have emerged with the release of a ruling on a contested contract awarded for management of the Y-12 and Pantex sites.

Babcock & Wilcox currently oversees the sites and was among the bidders that challenged the award to a Bechtel-led consortium called Consolidated Nuclear Security in January. The Government Accountability Office, which hears appeals of federal contract decisions, announced its recommendation to reopen the contract process earlier but only recently released its detailed reasoning for doing so.

In its ruling, the GAO stated, "We sustain the protests based on the agency’s failure to reasonably evaluate the feasibility and size of the offerors’ proposed cost savings, as required by the terms of the solicitation."

It noted that the source selection authority – the official in charge of picking the winning bidder – changed days before the award. Earlier, NNSA staff evaluated the likelihood that cost savings proposed in each bid would actually be realized. But, the GAO said, the new SSA "acknowledged that he did not perform any independent cost savings analysis, and further testified that he was unaware that various portions of the proposed cost savings had been evaluated by the CSAC (the agency’s own 'financial management specialists') as 'not reasonable,' 'partially reasonable,' or 'cannot determine.'"

The amounts of the questionable savings associated with each bid were redacted from the ruling released to the public. Nonetheless, the GAO said NNSA should have considered them and sought additional information where appropriate.

In its conclusion, the ruling read, "We also recommend that, based on that evaluation, the agency make a 
new source selection decision taking into consideration the relative size of the offerors’ feasible cost savings."


Anonymous said...

That was an interesting December. Neile Miller and her cohort, Mike Lempke, managed to grant unearned award terms to Bechtel for LLNL and LANS, then they rescored the Y-12/Pantex proposal to hand that one to the Bechtel team. By my calculation, that's $1.1 billion in fee to a non-performing company.

Vernell said...

This is cool!

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days