“NNSA has determined to grant Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS) a final Award Term for performance in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, extending the period of performance through FY 2018. No further award terms are available under the contract, therefore, it will expire on September 30, 2018.
Both NNSA and LANS are committed to the success of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), its essential and enduring mission, and its people. Together we seek to ensure the long-term health and vitality of LANL as a world-class institution for harnessing the latest developments in science, technology, and engineering to address the many challenges to our national security and our economy.
The current management and operating (M&O) contract for LANL was awarded on December 21, 2005. It contained a transition period, a base period of seven years (through FY 2013), and the potential to earn up to thirteen award terms, in one-year increments, based on very good performance across the Laboratory. LANS earned four additional terms for performance in FY 2008 through FY 2011, extending the period of performance to the end of FY 2017. LANS did not earn additional Award Terms for performance in FY 2012 through FY 2015. In accordance with the terms of the contract, if the Contractor doesn’t earn additional award term four times, the operation of the Award Term clause will cease. This means there is no additional opportunity to earn term.
Despite not earning the Award Term for performance in FY 2015, this extension acknowledges the improvements made by LANS in mission performance during FY 2015. NNSA offered to grant LANS an additional term in order to facilitate environmental cleanup programmatic changes and to allow DOE EM and NNSA contract competitions.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
35 comments:
Mike Anastasio and team: 4-0 for contract extension years
Charlie McMillan and team: 0-4
This is window dressing. DOE offered lans a 1 yr extension months ago because they didn't think they could turn both SNL and lans around in a year. Norm Pattis talked UC into playing hardball, and UC caame back to DOE declining 1 year, and demanding a 3 year (or 5 year --- it changes with the source) extension (thinking they had DOE in a box). Moniz in turn gave them the finger, and directed DOE to turn both around in a year (hence the tight timeline on the SNL rfp). UC folded, and accepted the original 1 year offer. The attempt at hardball by lans will likely have repercussions when DOE gets to source selection.
UC is persona non grata as far as DOE is concerned from now on in National Laboratory operation.
UC caame back to DOE declining 1 year, and demanding a 3 year
I think you mean Bechtel.
No, UC. UC is the head and corporate leader of LANS, not Bechtel. Look it up.
No, UC. UC is the head and corporate leader of LANS, not Bechtel. Look it up.
May 9, 2016 at 7:18 PM
False, Bechtel runs this show baby, make no mistake on this.
Please stop calling people "baby". It is very creepy and makes you sound like a child molester. Just stop it, asshole.
Here come the crazy bitter LANL people again.
Please stop calling people "baby". It is very creepy and makes you sound like a child molester. Just stop it, asshole.
May 9, 2016 at 9:04 PM
Bechtel baby! Dollar bills ya all.
Rumor has it that the Bechtel family is against any future involvement of the corporation in the NWC. It seems the likelihood of profit is too uncertain and the unsuitability to Bechtel's core business expertise of engineering and construction is being recognized.
The fact Bechtel is virtually ubiquitous in the NW business would seem to defy that rumor. They seem to be making lots of virtually guaranteed profit. Care to say anything about where you heard this rumor?
Bechtel should opt out before they are thrown out.
No. It was UC
No. It was UC
May 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM
Bechtel baby, and Bechtel is going to stay one way or another, it is all about money, everything to gain and nothing to lose. Bechtel runs the show for now and may well be running the show for a long long time. BB and PBIs say what you want but they made out great.
Baby, baby, baby. Do you have any children? I'm betting no, and no wife either. What woman could stand your stupidity? Endless ranting about "it's all about the money." I bet you don't have any and can't figure out why. Ignorance and arrogance are a really unattractive combination of traits in a person. I bet you have cats.
10:32 AM is swimming upstream against significant evidence to the contrary.
Why?
False, Bechtel runs this show baby, make no mistake on this.
May 9, 2016 at 8:57 PM
Produce a copy of the LLC agreement that shows Bechtel "runs this show." You have the burden of proof.
Conversely, this is one example of many that show UC leads the consortium. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-keeps-control-of-Los-Alamos-2587087.php
UC appoints the chairman of the board and the director. Bechtel has the vice chair and the deputy director.
If UC leads the consortium how is it that Bechtel has all these people at the labs and rotates them through every 3 years. How come Bechtel keeps most of the profit and UC does not? Bechtel runs the show plain and simple.
Also how is it that the lab ran soo much better under UC than LANS? LANS has been a disaster.
If UC leads the consortium...
May 11, 2016 at 7:23 PM
"If..."???? It is in writing, in the contract, and in the LLC agreement. What is your problem???
The President of the LLC does not have anything to do with who runs the operation. Neither does the Chairman of the Board of the LLC.
Just because both of them are 100% UC, it still does not matter.
The way it works is that the parent companies take all the fee money and UC does not get anything.
That's the LANL party line, and they are sticking to it, even if there is no evidence to support it.
The President of the LLC does not have anything to do with who runs the operation.
May 12, 2016 at 6:56 AM
"Magical Thinking" - Believing something is true because you want it to be true. The President of LANS, LLC is named Charlie McMillan.
The President of LANS, LLC is named Charlie McMillan.
May 12, 2016 at 10:00 AM
Yes and he makes big money from Bechtel not UC. UC ran the show for 60 years, no problems, LANS and LLNS run the show for 10 years and you have total absolute complete, and utter disaster, RIFS, WIP, VSPS, loss of talent, loss of credibility, electrical accidents, meth, NIF failing, money wasted, capabilities lost, infrastructure degraded, the labs are am absolute laughing stock now. Don't think our enemies are not watching, UC did not create this utter catastrophe of a mess LLNLS and LANS did, so ask yourself what is the common theme and the answer is glaringly obvious for all to see, Bechtel.
Hard news for Mr. Bechtel, May 12, 2016 at 6:56 AM
May 12, 2016 at 8:35 PM
Amen brother! Not to nit pick, but that's WIPP not WIP and I might have added exploding drums. There was another exploding drum at LANL in 2008 during remote drum venting operation with worker exposure that LANS covered up. I guess I might have added "corruption" to the list too.
No problems under UC? Let us recall RIFs, VSPs, Wen Ho, meth, missing drives, piles of money wasted, Mustangs, more meth, cowboy cultures. The reason we have LANS and LLNS is because UC blew it hugely, especially with the cesspool that is still LANL.
RIFs and VSPs occurred all over the country. Of the rest of your garbage list, only WHL actually happened.
Most of this is inaccurate. Thhe President of lans (and llns) is selected by UC, the compensation is set by UC, and serves at the pleasure of UC. It is why McMillan is still there (Pattis listens to anastasio, and Charlie is his boy. Bechtel would have fired him years ago.) and why Albright is gone (Pattis hated that he fired Moses. Bechtel applauded it). The UC fee is about the same as Bechtel's. Bechtel keeps theirs, UC rolls it back into a fund for joint UC-Lab research projects. Quite a bit of the fee goes in to unallowables so there is less available than you might think.
No problems under UC? Let us recall RIFs, VSPs, Wen Ho, meth, missing drives, piles of money wasted, Mustangs, more meth, cowboy cultures. The reason we have LANS and LLNS is because UC blew it hugely, especially with the cesspool that is still LANL.
May 13, 2016 at 7:28 AM
All of this was BS, total BS, we have been through this before it cannot stick. How is LANL cesspool, how did UC blow it? What did they do wrong with WHL, in fact they handled it well, it was the FBI and Richardson the messed that up. Meth? this was not a major problem, there was
no missing disks, money was better spent, there as no cowboys, no more meth. As for RIFs during the UC times that was due to the US budget not the LLC taking the money. Get your facts straight. Here is a question you never seem to address if it was all LANL than why change LLNL as well? Because it was about money not LANL.
It all did stick, that's why you work for LANS now.
"Why" is because Domenici made a very, very bad political choice. No other reason - he could have stopped it cold but decided not to.
It all did stick, that's why you work for LANS now.
May 13, 2016 at 12:56 PM
The point is that it no longer "sticks" they ran that lie once but they cannot do it again.
You may say some bad thing about UC but one thing you absoutly have to give them kudos and full credit for is firing the complete, total, absolute, and pure scum that are Walp and Doran. That alone was totally worth everything and a one of greatest services to the NNSA, DOE, the nation, earth, the solar systems, galaxy, local group, Virgo cluster, the super cluster, the known universe, multiverse, and any fictional universes.
LANL sounds like a very different place than the LLNL that I know. Plus I cant follow the references. Perhaps a different blog is worth while.
So Scooby believes that calling some people who were fired "complete, total, absolute, and pure scum" is entirely acceptable, but praising the people who actually did the firing and lost their jobs for it, is not acceptable.
I appreciate Scooby keeping the blog going. Thanks Scooby. But I do agree the deletions seem really weird. I have noticed some other deletions of comments that seemed to make valid and interesting points. Could you elaborate at all on your thinking, Scooby, perhaps in a new thread? I am not trying to give you a hard time. You are appreciated but it would help to understand what the actual criteria are since many posts are deleted that do not seem to violate the rules and other that do like posters childishly calling each other jerks seem to be OK.
Post a Comment